ML20195G157
| ML20195G157 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/16/1987 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151A314 | List: |
| References | |
| TASK-PINV, TASK-SE SECY-87-101, NUDOCS 8706030157 | |
| Download: ML20195G157 (137) | |
Text
up
- p. .,g saw 3 t 3.
i
/
POLICY ISSUE .
(Notation Vote)
A?ril 16, 1987 SECY-97-101 3r: The Cornissioners From: Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
ISSUES AND PROPOSED OPTIONS CONCERNING DEGPEE REQUIREMEFT FOR SENIOR OPERATORS
Purpose:
To obtain a Comission decision on alternatives regarding the contemplated degree rule for senior operators.
Background:
An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPPF) to require after January 1,1991, all applicants for a Senior Operator (50) license to possess a baccalaureate degree in engineering or p sical science was issued for public coment on May 1 , 1986 (51 FR 19561). The public coment period expired o September 29, 1986.
Discussion: Two hundred letters were received in response to the ANPRM.
Five respondents favor the proposed degree requirement for 50s. The remaining 195 respondents were opposed. HNever, nearly half of the licensed operators (41 of 86) and ether comenters (55 of 114) indicate that additional training en severe accidents is needed and would improve the ability of lic'ensed operators to prevent and manage severe accidents,r s
Because of the large number of coments indicating a need or preference for additional training, the staff evaluated the current training requirements and progrrws related to severe accident training. Because of IN. ':, role i
under the Comission's Policy Statement on " ....ing and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, the staff's evaluation included technical exchange meetings with INPO.
The preliminary results of the staff review are contained in
Contact:
W. T. Russell, ARR 492-4203 s
'p70gowM J l
? .
t The Comissioners a' February 9,1987letterfromW. Russell (NRC7toK.Strahm (INPO). These results were the subject of a february 20, 1987 meeting in which MPO identified action underway and planned to address severe accident training for.both shift crews and those individuals responsible for accident assessment in the licensee's Emergency Response Organization. Their actions are described in Enclosure (1) and include reviews of crew perfomance during simulator evaluations, reviews of plant Emergency Operating Procedures and revising guidelines related to severe accident training.
The fact that INPO independently identified severe accident l
! training and procedure weaknesses and is taking positive action to improve the situation is further evidence that .
- industry initiative under the Policy Statement on Training l
and Qualification is working. In sumary, the staff believes that the actions being taken by INPO will result in improved training and improved ability of the shift crew to mspond to severe accidents.
l f in light of the INPO comitmea+. to improved training and i
that new training regulations related to severe accidents would not be consistent with the Comission's Policy l State. ment on Training and Qualification, the staff believes l
(1) that the training and education issues discussed in the ANPRM should be separatad, (2) that rulemaking related to
- required severe accident training should be deferred, and (3) that rulemaking related to educational requirements should be continued separately. The staff also believes that any necessary changes to the Policy Ststement on TrainingandQualificationofNuclearPowerPlantPersonnel related to severe accident training should be made with other changes following the two year trial period. [
s The Comission's Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift has identical education requirements to those i proposed in the ANPRM. The staff reported the results of I its survey of Engineering Expertise on Shift in SECY 86-231 on August 6, 1986 and concluded that the industry is moving ,
toward the dual role Senior Operator / Shift Technical Advisor (50/STA) option. In fact, since the Comission identified the requirement for engineering expertise on shift in NUREG 0737, "TH! Action Plan Requirerents," September 5, 1980, the percentage of 50s with degrees has s.teadily increased from 17 percent to 28 percent today. l Given the extensive coments and adverse impacts identified by comenters which are sumarized in Enclosure 2, the staff believes that significant resources would be required to develop the regulatory and backfit analyses required for a
I=
l ..
The Commissioners 1 proposed rule. The staff, in order to efficiently utilize its resources, is seeking additional guidance on the' option to be developed as part of the proposed rulemaking. ~
On the basis of work done to date, the staff believes. that one of the following options with supporting regulatory and backfit analyses should be developed. These options are:
- 1. Proceed with the contemplated degree rule and concurrent policy statement as proposed in the ANPRM. This option mld in the long tenn result in two degreed Senior Operators on shift.
- 2. Propose a rule to require a degreed individual on shift similar to a Senior Manager, as described in SECY-84-106.
- 3. Amend the Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift to explicitly encourage licensees to develop programs leading to degrees, to utilize the combined 50/STA option and to phase out use of a. s,parate STA.
Recomenda tions : That the Connission:
- 1. Approve separating the training dnd educational issues discussed herein.
- 2. Provide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed, i
- 3. Note that the staff would incorporate any necessary
- changes to the Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel to s address severe accident training when the policy f statement is updated following the two-year trial program.
- 4. Note that the staff would defer additional effort on the rule pending receipt of Connission's guidance.
/
W ctor Ste o, .
Executive ir tor for Operat{ons
Enclosures:
- 1. INPO Guidance, Programs and Actions Related to Severe Accident Training
- 2. Public Coceents on ANPRM on Degree Requirement for Senior Operators 1
l
Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, May 1, 1987 Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, April 24, 1987, with an infor-mation copy to the Office of the Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC (H Street)
OI OIA GPA REGIONAL OFFICES EDO OGC (MNBB)
s
9 ENCLOSURE 1 INPO GUIDANCE, PROGRAMS AND ACTIONS RELATED TO SEVERE ACCIDENT TRAth!NG e
INPO Guidelines which address the expected content of facility
- training programs in the area of severe accident training and Emergency Operating Procedures include the following:
PWR Control Room Operator, Senior Control Room Operator, and Shift Supervisor Qualification - IhPO 83-022, June dT83 and BWR Control Room Operator, Senior Control Rooni,Gperator, and Shif t Supervisor Qualification - INPO 85-025, June 1985 These guidelines specify training in plant emergency response primarily as related to Emergency Plan responsibilities. They also require training related to degraded core cooling and reference INPO STG - 01, January 1981, which is currently being upgraded by INPO.
Guidelines for the Developeent of Nuclear Plant Manacers and Middle g nagers - Draft 2, January 1957,-
This guideline includes Accident Management functions and specifically addresses transients which place the plant in a condition not covered by the safety analysis or the Emergency Operating Procedures and which could lead to core damage. Topics included are:
- Plant orgar.ization and staff fer responding to severe accidents
- Use of corporate and vendor technical experts in rssponding to severe accidents
- Use of plant specific PRA results to help prioritize actions
- Uss of IDCOR reports to develop preventive and corrective action plans
- Control of Critical Safety Functions before, during and after the severe transient ;
8 For each Topic covered supporting infortnation is included in Appendix}B which identifies additional specialized education and technology training. For example Appendix 8 Section 2.2.2.3 on Accident Assessment specifies training such that the candidate would have an understanding of the following:
- Sequence of events that could initiate each accident
- Assumptions associated with the analysis
- Expected values of critical parameters as the accident progresses
- Anticipated indications, automatic actions, strategy for mitigation, and recovery actions
- Long term actions required for core cooling and plant stabilization Other sections of Appendix B also include detailed guidance, for example:
- Accident sequences and the strategies required to maintain critical safety functions and
- Strategies required to restore critical safety functions to a degraded core are part of specified simulator training ,'
Guidelines for Training to Recognize and Mitigate the-Consecuences of Core Damage - STG-01, January (1981 This guideline document is in the process of extensive revision and updating to address severe accidents. The target date for issue is September 1987. It currently describes course material for 138 contact hours of training in core damage mitigation. Positions covered include:
Plant Manager, Assistant Plant Manager, Operations Manager, Shift Supervisors, SR0s, R0s, and STAS.
Guideline >er Continuing Training of Licensed Personnel - INP0 86-025, October /1985l J
This guideline describes continuing training for licensed staff including simulator exercises which stress diagnosis of and response to emergency events to control reactivity, maintain RCS integrity, assure adequate core cooling and maintain containment integrity. (t was recently revised to provide INPO guidance in areas previously regulated by NRC, 10CFR55 Appendix A.
f,uideline for Simulator Training - INPO 86-026, October 1986,'
This guideline is for use in the development and implementation of simulator training programs. It includes emphasis on Teamwork and Diagnostic Training (3.4.6) and Developing Operator Proficiency in Use of Procedures (3.4.7). Evaluations are conducted to determine:
i I
- ability to use symptom-based emergency procedures through a better understandin5f of procedure strategies and improved ability to think logically while using procedures s
- ability to cope with situations not specifically addressed by procedures
- ability to predict plant response and the effects of operator actions
- ability to think through changing conditions logically, thus, increasing the possibility of terminating the event and initiating appropriate recovery actions.
Emergency Operating Procedures Inlementation Guideline - INPO 82 016.
Rev.1. July 1953; Emergency Operating Procedures Writing Guideline - INPO,82-017. July 1982; Emergency Operating Procedures Verification Guideline - INP0 83-004, March 1953; Emergency Operating Procedures Validation Guideline - INPO 43-006, July 1983; and Emergency Or>erating Procedures Generation Package Guideline - INPO 63 007. February 1953
l.
These documents provide guidance to utilities in developing'and implementing revised Emergency Operating Procedures and ame being utilized durirg the simulator portion of plant evaluations by INPO to essess the effectiveness of procedure implementation and training, j
$ 1 INPO Programs which evaluate the effectiveness of Training and Emergency l Operating Procedures include: i Performance Objectives and Criteria for Operating and Near-Tem
,0perating License Plants - INPO 85-001, January 1985 This document establishes the objectives and acceptance criteria for INPO Plant Evaluations and Assistance visits. Specific performance objectives related to the adequacy of "Operations Procedures and Documentation" and "Emergency Response Training" are relevant to severe accident training.
- review plant ECPs content vs owners' group guidelines
- review of plant E0Ps for human factors problems
- use of Peer Evaluator (SRO Qualified) from a similar facility
- emphasis on team training and team diagnostic capability of control room crew during simulator exercise:
- Assistance and Visits on E0Ps
- Desk top analysis at INPO
- Observe simulator training
' Jraining effectiveness is part of Plant Evaluations ;
8 - Evaluator support from Training Division
- Emphasis on observation cf job performance
- Crew performance on simulator is evaluated (uses INPO Simulator Guideline above)
Performance Objectivet and Criteria for Corporate Evaluations - INPO .85-029 August (1985 /
This document establishes the objectives and acceptance criteria for INPO Corperate Evaluations. It includes specific performance objectives for Training of corporate r.anagers and for Emergency Preparedness.
The Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry - INPO 55 00Z (Revision 1), September,1985 V
This document establishes the objectives and criteria necessary for a utility to achieve accreditation of their training programs.
Accreditation does not cover the job functions related to the Emergency
Director nor the individuals charged with accident assessmept functions An the facility's Emergency Plan. Positions on the shift crew are included, i.e., Shif t Supervisor, Senior Operator, Reactor Operator, and Shift Technical Advisor.
Case Study Approach This is a new activity in which two INPO Groups are currently participating. It is designed arcund the use of significant events to develop in-depth case studies for job incumbents and trainees. The
- initial case studies are based on several rod mispositioning events (including the Chernobyl Accident).
Actions underway by INPO as part of their initiatives to reduce the probability cf a core damaging accident include the following:
- Providing an improved focus in the Plant Evaluation Program regarding the effectiveness of management controls
- Making an evaluatien of Corporate Attitude with respect to reactor safety and the utility programs in place to assure reactor safety
- Increased emphasis on operating crew evaluations with particular emphasis on team performance through simulator exercises
- A method for tracking unavailability of safety systems is under development as an indicator of the effectiveness of utility programs
- Priority on evaluation of plant Emergency Operating Procedures and the ability of control room crews to use them
' Incorporation *ofExistingequipment(includingBOPequipment)into. -
I l
- E0Ps rather than relying upon only safety related equipment is an ![P0 i 8 priority o
ENCLOSURE 2 e
i i
PU8LIC CON 4ENTS 1
ADVANCE NOTICE OF I PROPOSED RULEMAKING ON I
DEGREE REQUIRFMENT FOR SENIOR OPEP.ATORS l t
f r
f
.- l i (
l l
l l
t I
i I
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS .
s Pagg i
I. List of Acronyms 1
-II. List of Commenters 2
!!!. Resolution of Public Comments 11 :
A. Response to twenty questions of ANPRM 11 ;
B. Prior panels and committees 58 C. Suggested alternatives to ANPRM 59 ,
D. Commissioner Asselstine's proposal 61 E. Commissioner Roberts' additional questions 64 F. Extend ccament persed for the ANPRM 69 t G. Send ANPRM to licenssd operators 70 H. Support for degree requirements 70 I. Opposition to degree requirement 70 ,
! J. Complets backfit analysis 71
- K. Experience requirement 72 L. Concurrent policy statement 74 i M. License examination process 77 .
N. Operator training 77
(
l
- 0. Operator staffing 81, l
P. Operator qualifications 81[
8
] Q. History on contemplated degree rule 83 f R. Research reactors 84 i i S. Statistics on senior operators 84 l
T. Ed n ate public on nuclear power 84 U. ANPRH's relationship to other regulations 85 V. Industry study and views regarding ANPRM 85 IV. Index of Public Cossnents 90
~
l E
I. LIST OF ACRONYMS ,
e AE00 - Office of the Analysis and Evaluation of Operationk. Data
- AIF - Atomic Industrial Forum
- ANI - American Nuclear Insurers
- ANPRM - Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
- ANS - Americaa Nuclear Society ASE - Assi,stant Shift Engineer
- CLFP - College Level Examinaticn Program
- DCRDR - Detailed Control Room Design Review
- OL - Division of Licensing E0P - Emergency Operating Procedure
' 10COR - Industry Degraded Core Rule =aking Program
- INp0 - Institute of Nuclear Power Operations j ' LOCA - Loss of Coolant Accident
- NUKARC - Nuclear Utility Management and Human Resources Committee
- OAET - Operator Action Event Tree
~
- OGC - Office of tne General Counsel
- OIE - Office of Inspection and Enforcement
- ONMSS - Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
- ONRR - Office gf Nuclear Reactor Regelation .
- ORES - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
[
' 8
- PONSI - Program on Nen-Collegiate Sponsored Instruction
- PRA - Probabilistic R',sk Analysis
- PROS - Professional Reactor Operators' Society
- PWR - Pressurized Water Reactor e
- QR0 - Qualification of Reactor Operator's Utility Group SO - Senior Operator
- SPOS - Safety Parameter Display Systet
- SRO - Senior Reactor Operator
- STA - Shif t Technical Advisor
- TMI - Three Mile Island
,
- tr Utility Operator N. m L
2 II. LIST OF COMMENTERS e
Letter Number ,pmmenter la Raymond E. Landrum, Antioch, IL 2 James W. Turner, Calcutta, OH 3 Charles H. P111ard, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -
4 Paul F. Collins. KMC, Inc.
5 James W. Holt, Florida Power and Light Company 6 John Bowen, Stuart, FL 7 Dwight E. Baker, Destrehan, LA 8 Marvin E. Eld, 'Jniversity of Idaho l 9 Les Williams, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 10 George E. Storolis, Beaver, PA 11 Leonard J. Spring, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 12 Theodore A. Swanson, Glastonbury, CT 13 Mark S. Hall, Two Rivers, AR :
14 ,
Robert LeBow, Columbia AL 15 Joseph D. Hochdorfer, Colchester, CT i I
s 16 Mark A. Navarro, Schaumburg..IL 17 Stephen M. Cogswell, Benten Harbor, MI 18 J. B. Gallagher, Lacrosse, WI 19 Daryl L. Olson, Avila Beach, CA 20 Richard H. Slater, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 21 Stephen E. Sampson, Fulton, MD l' Charles C. Zapp, St. Leonard, MD -
]
l
- Letter Number 1 was deleted from the resolution of public comerus because it was not relevant to the ANpRM.
i
3 Letter Number Commenter ,
23 Robert J. Haessly, Kewaunee, WI 24 Gordon D. Krogh, Kewaunee, WI 25 Robert E. Niedzielski, Huntingtown, MD 26 James B. Michael, Omaha, NE 27 Samuel R. Johnson, Chattanooga, TN 28 Stephen J. Ludders, Monticello, MN 29 Gary L. Pothoff, South Haven, MI 30 James L. Freels, Port Clinton, OH 31* E. T. Faber, Prattsburg, NY 32 E. Floyd Thomas, Chattanooga, TN ,
33** William G. Vernetson, University of Florida 34 Kenneth G. Erickson, KGE Incorporated 35 Donald E. Howard, Toledo, OH 36 Gordon D. Krogh, Kewaunee, WI 37 Terrill V. Bacon, Genoa, WI 38 Philip W. Berg, Genoa, WI 39 Ronald E. Pennebecker, unknown city and state 40 Kenneth G. Erickson, KGE, Incorporated 41 ,
P. F. Pasqua, The University of Tennessee
. 42 Michael E. Bal, Two Rivers, WI .i ;
Lynne S. Goodman, Genor, WI I a 43 44 Richard H. Budreck, Columbia City, OR 45 William F. Boehme, Monticello, MN 46 Dean L. Gano, Richland, WA 47 Gregory Paul Enterline, Rainier, OR
- Letter Number 31 was deleted from the resolution of pubite comments because it was not relevant to the ANPRM.
- Letter Number 33 was deleted from the resolution of pubite comments because it was a request for a copy of the ANPRM.
Letter Number Commenter 48 Stanley A. Chiotti, Rainier, OR 49 Steve Gordon, Cordova, IL 50 Ralpn C. Downey, Hartsville, SC 51 John T. Patterson, Fulton, MO 52 E. R. Johnson, International Brotherhood of Electrical Worker's 53 Joseph C. Heitzmann, Longview, WA 54 Bernard Wehring and Garry D. Miller, North Carolina State University l
55 Herbert C. Dameron, Lincointor, NC 56 T. G. Staskal. Two Rivers, WI 57 Louis A. Ciuffini, Elwcod, IL 58 T. G. Williamson, University of Virginia 59 Jaime E. Rivera, St. Leonard, MD 60 keith L. Shows, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 61 Mike A. Rhodes, Arroyo Grande, CA 62 Michael J. Sandhoefner Dmaha, NE 63 James E. Wright, Daisy, TN 64 . Charles L. Dunkerly, Baltimore, MD 65 Mr. & Mrs. T. B. Thigpen, Jr., Lyons, GA [
66 M. Holland, Stony Brook, NY 67 Rich'rd a C. Goodin, unknown city and state 68 Stan Burnett, Granbury TX 69* ,
F. A. Bozo, Minneapolis Electri: Steel Castings 70 C11fton E. Deweese, Hinson, TN 71 Michael Perry, Big Lake, MN 72 Donald A. Crouch, Martinez, GA
- Letter Number 69 was deleted from the resolution of public comments because it was not relevant to the ANPRM.
o .
5 Letter Number Commenter 73 Albert E. Wilson, Idaho State University 74 Edward F. Bergner, Oregon, OH 75 Robert J. Rohland, Monticello, MN 76 Rsymond E. Landrum, Antioch, IL 77 George E. Coward, Sacramento Municipal Utility District 78 Steve Redeker, Sacramento Municipal Utility District 79 John M. Qu.; m, Sedley, TN 80 Bryan J. Ray, Hopewell Junction, NY 81 David L. Frye, St. Leonard, MO 82 Leslie K. Skipper, Killen, AL 83 Richard A. McGrath, Niantic, CT 84 Weston L. Baruth, Tarkte, MO 85 Richard R. Tansky, LaGrangeville, NY 86 David W. Schreiber, Hephzibah, GA 87 Michael D. Cooper, Galt, CA 88 Marcus J. Wright, Soddy Daisy, TN 89 James T. Springfield, Hixson, TN 90 Jeffie Gamons, Jr., Spring City. TN ,
San Gejdenson, Congress of the United States t a 91 92 Richard Reed, Sacramento, CA 93 John W. Warner, United States Senate 94 William B. Derrickson, Public Service of New Hampshire 95 Richard J. Varga, Two Rivers, WI 96 Gary Hutchison, Grover City CA 97 Neil Wilson, Oak Harbor, OH ,
98 Raymond R. Vos, unknown city and state 99 ,
John Bowen, Stuart, FL 300 Ben C. Lake, Soddy Daisy, TN l
6 Letter Number Commenter 101 Harold J. Birch, Jr., Soddy Daisy, TN 102 Anthony 5. Kanicik, Jr., Pismo Beach, CA.
103 Anthony 5. Kanicki, Jr., Pismo Beach, CA 104 G. B. Statton, Cedar Rapids IA 105 Carl Lansden, Knoxville, TN 106 Bouvard Hosticka, Charlottev111e, VA 107 William J. Manion, Nuclear Energy Services 108* Sam Gejdenson, Congress of the United States 109 Dennis DeConcini, United 5:stes Senate 110 Ernest F. Hollings United States Senate 111 Ernest F. Hollings, United States Senate ,"
112 - James P. Hogan, Georgia Technologies, Inc.
113 Scott A. Ruesch, Two Rivers WI 114 Robert A. Jansky, Brownville, NE 115 Drew C. Smith. York, PA 116 John F. Lohr, Huntingtown, MD 117 Michael L. Wasem, St. Leonard, MD 118 Paul Sullivan, Cedar Rapids, IA 119 Jess: Helas, United States Senate 120 W1111am H. Lowthert, Bloomsburg, PA ,
121 Stephen P. Rohr Cedar Rapids, IA i a
122 W1111am W. Douglass, Jr., Cedar Rapids, IA 123 Mark W. Jensen Davenport, IA 124 Robert W. Hawkins, Granbury TX 125 Sam Nunn, United States Senate 126 Edward E. Harrison, Cedar Rapids, IA 127 L. P. Strayer, Lusby, MD
- Letter Number 108 was deleted from the resolution of public comments because it is identical to letter Number 91.
- e 7
Letter Number Com-enter ,
128 Kenneth & Linda Nesbisch, Auburn, ME 129 James D. Chaisson, Marion, IA 130 L. G. Kunc1, Nebraska Public Power District 131 Jeff Thorsteinson, city and state unknown 132 Murray R. Edelman, The Cleveland Electric 111uminating Company 133 Carl M. Gray, Mischicot, W!
134 George J. Vargo, Jr., Fulton, NY 135 Thomas J. Vorderbruggen, Prince Frederick, MD 136 Richard A. Simpkins, Toledo Edison 137 Peter Walz9r, Mantua, NJ 138 Kenneth D. Grada Pittsburgh, PA 139 George DeSain The University of the State of New York 140 Richard A. Svendsgaard, St. Leonard, MD l 141 Dennis Farrar, Comonwealth Edison 142 Thomas M. Jones, Prince Frederick, MD 143 Bruce M. Dusterhoft, South Haven, MI 144 David E. LaBarge, Professional Reactor Operator Society ;
, 145 Robert 5. Smith, Oregon OH I 146 R. P. Mcdonald, Alabama Power Company 147 W. G. Counsil. Texas Utilities Generating Company 148 Ronald J. Mulheron, Jr., Mishicot, WI 149 R. P. Heibel, St. Leonard, MD 150 Shields L. Da treff, Philadelphia Electric Company 151 R. L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District 152 D. C. Hintz, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 153 Warren P. Murphy, Vermont Yankee Power Corporation 154 W. T. Ulrich, American Nuclear Society (ANS-3 Standards Subcomittee for Operations)
8 Letter Nucer Commenter ,
155 W. H. Owen, Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Committee ,
156 H. B. Tucker, Duke Power Company 157 Jim Peterson, Professional Recctor Operator Society i
158 W. 5. Wilgus, Florida Power Corporation 159 H. W. Keiser Pennsylvania Power and Light Company 160 R. L. Mitt 1, Public Service Electric and Gas
- Company 161 Kennsth W. Berry, Consumers Power Company 162 Mtrshall M. Hicks, Utility Workers Union of America 163 Joe Williams, Jr., Toledo Edison 164 M. O. Medford, Southern California Edison Company 163 Paul F. Cu111ns, KMC, Inc.
166 Joseph A. Gonyeau, Northern States Power Company 167 George S. Thomas, Pubite Service of New Hampshire 168 Rcaald Sanacore, American Nuclear Insurers 169 0. D. Kingsley, Jr., Mississippi Power and Light Company ;
170 Frank E. Agosti Detroit Edison Company i 171 John C. Brons, New York Power Authority 172 J. H. Miller, Jr., Georgia Power Company 173 L. T. Gucwa, Georgia Power Company 174 J. G. Haynes, Arizona Nuclear Power Project 175 D. W. Edwards, Yankee Atomic Electric Company 176 J. F. Opeka, Northeast Utilities 177 Richard W. McGaughy, Iowa Electric Light and Power Company 178 Terry R. Lash, State of Illinois, Department of Nuclear Safety
9 Letter Number Commenter ,
- i 179 J. W. Williams, Jr., Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
180 J. A. Tiernan, Baltimore Gas and Electric' Company :
181* J. H. Miller, Georgia Power Company 182 D. A. Nauman, South Carolina Electric and Gas Company 183 J. D. Shiffer, Pacific Gas and Electric Company 184 T. Gene Campbell, Arkansas Power and Light Company 185 Gregory J. Maxfield, Two Rivers, WI 186 C. D. Woody, Florid. Power and Light Company 187* J. G. Hanes, Arizona Nuclear Power Project 1
188 S. R. Zimmerman, Carolina Power and Light Company 189 Stephen M. Buraczewski, Maribel, WI 190 Arthur R. Shean. Topsham, ME 191 G. C. Sorensen, Washington Public Power Supply .
System 192 Donald F. Schnell, Union Electric Company 193 J. D. Sieber, Duquesne Light Company 194 Robert N. Meyer, Hager City, WI 195 Roger W. Kober, Rochester Gas and Electric l .
Corporation ,
s 196 J. R. Thorpe, GPU Nuclear i 197 Glenn L. Koester, Kansas Gas and Electric Company 198 Thomas E. Lempges, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation ;
199* L. T. Gu:w;, Georgia Power Company 200* Joe Williams, Jr., Toledo Edison 201* Donald F. Schnell, Union Electric 202 Bart D. Withers, Portland General Electric Company
~
- Letter Numbers 181, 187, 199, 200, and 201 were deleted because they are '
identical to Letter Numbers 172, 174, 173, 163 and 192, respectively.
20 .
Letter Number Cemmenter
?
203 J. C. Deddens, Gulf States Utilities Company 204 R. L. Gridley, Tennessee Valley Authority 205* J. F. Opeka, Northeast Utilities 205 John B. Randa:za, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company j 206 Thomas E. Lempges, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 207 Van B. Fisher, San Clemente, CA 208 W. L. Stewart, Virginia Electric and Power Company 209 M. R. Wisenburg, Houston Lt;bting and Power Compnoy 210* M. R. Wisenburg, Houston Lighting and Power
. Company James M. Lydon, Boston Edison Company l 210 Comments are referred to by two numbers. The first corresponds to the letter number; the second refers to the comment number within the letter. For
[ instance, Comment 3-1 refers to the first comment in Letter Number 3. [
t
- Letter Numbers 205 and 210 were deleted because they are identical to Letter Numbers 176 and 209, respectively.
Il III. RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS e A. Twenty Questions of ANPRM
- 1. Is January 1,1991, a feasible deadline for requiring senior operators to be degreed and licensed, and if not, what should the deadline be?
Comments 13-1, 13-11, 13-15, 20-1, 21-3, 26-1, 27-1, 28-1, 34-3, 37-1, 38-1, 39-1, 42-3, 43-6, 47-1, 48-1, 49-1, 51-2, 53-1, 55-9, 56-9, 57-2, 61-7, 62-2, 65-67, 65-87, 65-94,65-102, 66-1, 67-1, 68-1, 71-8, 74-2, 76-15, 84-1, 95-5, 104-1, 106-1, 113-10, 114-4, 118-1, 120-1, 128-1, 130-3, 130-5, 131-1, 132-3, 133-6,
- 134-7, 136-3, 138-19, 140-8, 141-4, 141-7, 141-8, 141-9, 144-54, 144-69, 144-70, 145-5, 146-11, 146-12, 148-10, 150-41, 151-8, 152-14, 152-15, 152-16, 153-9, 154-9, 156-6, 156-7, 157-18, 156-24, 158-25, 158-26, 158-51, 159-6, 160-3, 161-5, 162-12, 163-3, 164-2, 164-3, 164-4, 164-5, 165-15, 165-16', 166-6, 166-7, 166 8, 167-13, 170-3, 171-11, 173-1, 175-5, 176-30, 177-2, 180-6, j
180-7, 184-16, 184-17, 186-17, 186-18, 186-19, 188-6, 192-1, 192-2, 192-3, 195-7, 195-8, 196-15, 197-5, 197-7, 197-9, 197-10, 197-11,198-13,199-1, 202-4, 206-5, 207-2, and 209-1 state thal s January 1,1991, is not a feasible deadline for requiring senidr operators to be degreed and licensed and that a more replistic deadline would range from a minimum of 6 years to a maximum j of 15 years, with 8 years being the most frequently suggested deadline. Comments 7-1 and 7-24 state that January 1, 1991, is a feasible deadline. Comment 73-1 states that the deadline is feasible, however, an extension should be granted for those utilities that would have activated an acceptable program t, hat will meet the contemplated requirements. Comment 191-28 indi-cates that the deadline is probably feasible for graduates of the Navy Nuclear Power Program. Comments 139-5, 141-5, 191-25, and 191-29 state that the feasibility of January 1,1991, depends
12 .
on these factors: accumulated credit, local college resources, management commitment, available evaluated industry gourses, a realistic curriculum to which credits may be applied', and whether degreed individuals are to be trained as senior operators or whether licensed operators are to attend college to obtain de-grees. Comment 157-51 reports that respondents to a Professional Reactor Operator Society survey indicated 29 percent "yes" and 71 percent "no" with respect to whether January 1, 1991, is a feasible deadline. Coment 146-13 makes these suggestions for utilities that do not plan to develop onsite degree programs:
(a) time should be allowed for utilities to make the necessary arrangements with colleges and universities to establish a degree program, (b) time allowances should be made to complete the gree program since many of the people in the program would be attending class and working full time, and (c) time allowances should be made for outages since the same people who would he enrolled in the degree program must work overtime during outages.
Coment '158-76 suggests that for plants nearing decommissioning dates, if a realistic deadline is close to that date, that these plants be exempted from the degree requirement. Coment 172-29 states that current senior operators would not be required to obtain baccalaureate degrees under the contemplated rule because they would be grandfathered. Coment 177-4 and 178-5 advocate t 8 that schedules be negotiated on a plant-specific basis. Commen't 197-8 states: (a) the location of the plant is an taportant l consideration, (b) most co'lleges are not equipped to provide off-hour or off-campus instruction (c) the lead time to design a new program to meet utilities' needs will be several years, and (d) educational institutions do not have adequate staff to i
support a new program.
Resolution: If the Comission elects to proceed with the degree rule, the staff recommends that the dead 11ae be four years
e 13 subsequent to the date of publication of the final rple and that justifications by licensees for not meeting the deadline be considered on a case-by-case basis.
- 2. What the implementation and operation costs of the contemplated rule to utilities would be?
Comment 7-2 points out that the greatest cost will be senior operator salaries, which should be reasonable and commensurate with senior engineers, and that other costs should be negligible since the current operator training program could be used.
Comment 30-3 indicates that the demand for senior operators with an engineering degree will exceed the supply. Comment 20-2,
- 144-56, and 159-7 state the contemplated rule would require >
increased staffing in order to allow operators to attend college full time. Comments 157-19 and 166-9 predict increased training costs due to turnover. Comments 144-58 and 164-6 state that wages will be higher to attract and retain engineers willing to work shift hours.. Comment 174-2 indicates that the added cost for hiring and salary would prohibit competition for individuals with tbt, prerequisite requirements. Comment 73-20 mentions that the approach taken by the commenter's utility must be assessed; a
todetermineifitisactuallyeconomicallyfeasibleandwhethkr it will satisfy the contemplated requirement. Comments 21-4, ,
72-5, 76-16, 86-5, 103-7, 158-28, and 170-4 state that the added costs likely to result from attrition, reduced experience levels, and acquisition of degreed individuals are inestimable.
Comment 165-17 states the potential costs would be plant specific.
Comment 7-23 speculates that the cost is likely to be offset by increased efficiencies in routine operation acquired by employ-ing senior operators who have degrees. Comment 158-29 indicates {
that turnover of staff would result in additional costs that vould not be offset by benefits. Comment 158-30 points out that f costs resulting from degree pay bonuses w'ould be incurred by t ut t i t tie s . Comment 158-33 states that costs related to l
14 requalification training would be forthcoming. Comments 30-2 and 39-2 state that the contemplated rule will result in an in-crease in utility rates. Coments 34-4 and 164-1 note the con-templated rule will place an excessive burden on industry. Com-ment 38-2 indicates the cost of implementation will be enormous because of college tuition and anticipated increases that will be demanded by degreed senior operators. Comment 57-3 states the cost of college tuition will be too high to justify the minimal benefit of the contemplated rule. Comments 61-8 and 160-9 point out that the cost of implementation will be very expensive be-cause utilities will htye to pay for operators to obtain degrees.
ComeW.145-8 states the comenter's company will reimburse 85 percent of tuition ecsts. Coment 43-7 states the cost of im-plementation could be very high with respect to safety, person-nel fatigue, and attitude. Coment 184-18 states the costs, as a result of reduced levels of experience, would be high because of plant trips, extended outages, and increased damage to plant equipment. Coments 63-3 and 70-3 note that the contemplated rule appears to be a risky and a potentially costly experiment.
Coment 83-6 states there will be a cost in degraded safety for many years to come. Comments 49-2 and 140-9 suggest that NRC should help financially support implementation of the contem-plated digree rule. Coment 153-4 states that the cost of the (a)paidsab-[
contemplated rule will be immediate including:
baticals (b) tuition, and (c) additional staff. Coment 156-8 states the dollar impact on industry would include: (a) increases in salary, (b) replacement of personnel while non-degreed operators attend school, (c) loss of personnel, and (d) errors because of decrease in experience. Coment 157-19 and 150-59 indicate that any estimate of cost should include the long-term cost of attrition. Coments 28-3,148-11,,150-42, 154-10, and 160-9 indicate the cost would be very high to ex-tremely high (e.g., a six-figure salary for senior operators).
Cements 141-10, 151-9, and 158-27 express the concern that, to
15 the extent the contemplated degree rule increases this probability 6 of an off-normal event, the cost is extremely high arid prohibi-tive. Comment 42-4 states the financial imposition on utilities could make nuclear power plant operation unfeasible. Coments 56-10, 133-10, 152-17, 171-12, 198-14, 206-6, and 209-2 say the cost will be significant and substantial. Comments 71-9, 114-5, ;
128-2, and 141-11 state the cost will be high because utilities will have to pay substantial amounts of overtime, or will have to hire additional people and train them. Coment 85-3 notes it would be economically impractical to compensate potential 11-cense candidates at competitive levels for the number of years necessary to achieve the senior operator position. Coments 102-1, 144-21, and 144-55 state the cost of implementation would be extremely excessive to tremendous. Coment 191-30 indicates that the per student cost for instruct?on would probably be prohibitive unless the utility can form groups of reasonable size, therefore, INPO should develop a standardized program allowing self-paced instruction which would be accredited through a Program of Non-Collegiate Sponsored Instruction (PON51).
Coments 105-2, 105-8, and 105-11 indicate the economic aspects of today 9 nuclear industry is not suitable for implementation of the contemplated rule. Coment 65-103 states the cost would!
l 8 be negligible to a nuclear utility. Coment 131-2 states the implementation and operational costs would not be great because of the educational programs utilities already have in place for f their employees. Coment 162-13 states the implementing and operating costs would not be significant. Coment 175-6 states !
the' final costs to degreed senior operators to the nuclear in-dustry would consist of those that follow. (a) the cost asso-ciated with a degree program for those employees wh6 decide to pursue a degree to qualify for the 50 position after January 1, 1991; (b) the cost associated with the loss of those employees i who do not finish the degree program and leave the utility; (c) the cost of a high turnover of degreed 50s resulting from frustrations associated with rotating shift work and/or the
_ = _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
16 ,
pursuit of other career interests; (d) the cost of hiring degreed individuals, that is, additional recruitment costs r,esulting from the difficulty of finding graduates who are interested in the 50 position. Comment 195-9 estimates that indirect costs resulting j from the loss of motivation and productivity by plant person-ne) and the teplacement of experienced plant personnel by less experienced degreed personnel could result in costly mistakes and errors that could exceed substantial direct costs. Comment 84-2 states the cost will be in the millions because local col-leges will have to start new departments. Assuming that the ma.jority of the personnel involved must be replaced on shift I while attending class and that part time class work is more expensive than full time participation, Comment 104-2 estimates the cost to be as high as $50,000 per degree obtained. Coment 158-32 estimates the cost to be $22,000 plus nonproductive time (salary and wages) per degree obtained. Coment 146-14 states that the cost of an associate and bachelor degree program is estimated to be 5360,000 per year. Comment 150-43 states the l
contemplated rule would cost as much as three st11 ton per year.
Coment 150-60 indicates the university program (e.g., tuition i
expenses and payroll) could cost $1,330,000 per year. Coment 150-63 states that the cost of additional nonlicensed operators
- to be $2,020,000 per year. Comment 153-10 indicates initial i 8 costs would be 5450,000 for preliminary staffing, $250,000 fo tuition, and future annual costs from 8500,000 to 5750,000. As-suming a minimum of about 20 senior operators for each nuclear plant unit, Coment 130-6 provides the estimates that follow.
(a) Direct cost of education (132 semester hours at 550 per hour, including books): 510,000 per person, (b) Replacement overtime for class attendance (8 years of study at 15 percent overtime per year): 554,000 per person, (c) Travel and other ' expenses:
510,000 per person. (d) Estimated annual administration cost (utility administration of the program, and development /
administration costs of the university): 5150,000 per year.
17 (e) Total 10 year cost for initial program: $2,980,Q00.
(f) Annual continuing cost (four senior operators / year):
5446,000. Assuming a replacement of 1F people (e.g., to add 15 senior operators to staff), Comment 130-22 provides t'he esti-mates that follow. (a) Fifteen people at a gross salary of 575,000 (including benefits, license bonus): $1,125,000 per year. (b) Direct costs of education: $1,480,000. (c) Annual administration costs: 5150,000 per year. (d) Total five year cost: 57,855,000. (e) Annual continuing cost (four senior operators / year): 5446,000. Coment 132-4 provides these esti-mates: (a)Persenioroperatorcandidate: 5130,000 (1986 dol-lars). (b) Assuming four senior operators are licensed to ac-count for attrition: 5500,000 total annual expenditure.
(c) With grandfathering and minimal attrition, imediate costs ,
woJ1d be low. (d) Corporation commitment toward career develop-i ment of operators: $50,000 for college tuition and 580,000 for
) nominal study and travel. Assuming the utility acted on the Commission's words of encouragement to obtain degrees for reac-
]! tor operators and paid for the schooling of six shifts per plant l (two senior operators, three reactor operators per shift) and ,
compensation to cover salaries, personnel replacement costs, i . site training, travel, expenses, and overtime while attending . !
E I i8 college, Cossent 138-20 estimates the cost to be approximate 1y i $6,100,000 for implementation per plant. $1nce degreed person-
! nel would have a higher attrition rate resulting from the l l broadening of their career paths, Comment 138-21 points out that ;
recurrent annual costs of 51,220,000 for 20 percent of the im- f f pienentation cost could be expected. Assuming recent graduate l 1
engineers are hired rather than sending senior operators to school to obtain degrees Comment 150-77 estimates s cost saving ,
i of three million dollars, while Comments, 150-75 and 150-76 esti- f mate the yearly cost of this option would be $380,000. Assuming four senior operators in school per year, Coment 159-8 estimates an annual cost of 5100,000 to obtain a degree for one senior l I
18 operator and a total cost of over 514,000,000. Comments 161-6 and 163-4 estimate the cost to be 5100,000 to $200,000 per de-gree. Comment 161-10 estimates an additional cost of $500,000 per year for added personnel. Comment 166-11 estimates that a single-unit plant with 12 senior operators would have to replace 1 I
4 of them each year at an average annual cost of $800,000. For a two-unit plant with 18 senior operators, 6 senior operators would have to be replaced each year for an average annual esti-mated cost of $1,500,000. Thus, the operating cost of a three-unit plant is estimated to be increased by $2,000,000 per year.
- Comment 173-2 indicates that the present cost of an onsite col-lege program is 5300.000 per year which would be escalated sig-nificantly to meet the January 1, 1991, deadline. Comment 166-10 estimates the cost for individuals participating in an 18-month training program (noniteensed and senior operator sections) would be approximately $200,000. Comment 176-31 estientes that sending a group of 24 operators (one per shift for each of four nuclear units) through two years of our Thames Valley State Technical !
College (TVSTC) program followed by two years at a Bachelor of Science Degree granting institution would result in a total cost of approximately $4,200,000, including tuition and salaries.
Coenent 177-5 estimates the minimum direct cost of allowing a senior operator to attend school while replacing this individual ;
on shift would be 5270,000 (or 555,000 x 4, plus $50,000): col-I lege education (55,000/ year), reactor operator replacement salary and benefits (550,000/ year), and training replacement reactor operator ($50,000/one-time cost). Comment 177 6 states direct .
costs for part-time school attendance would Itkely exceed 5270,000 per degree. Comment 177-7 indicates that indirect costs could exceed direct costs. Using the University of Maryland Nuclear Science Degree Program as a model, Cossent 180-8 estimates the total cost to implement the requirement by upgrading 15 existing licensed operators is: university fees (5600,000),
l
20 costs. Coment 195-10 estimates substantial direct costs f rom 1-2 million dollars for a shift complement including higher salaries,turnovercosts,andongoingprogramcostsIhichwould be a function of the turnover rate. Coment 196-16 estimates costs to train, qualify, and educate twelve individuals to cover six shifts wbuld be $100,000 to 5300,000 per person, with addt-tional costs between 5100,000 to 5200,000 to prepare 2 to 4 per-sons per year. Coments 197-12, 197-13, and 197-14 estimate a complete college degree, excluding salary and benefits for per-sonnel, could cost 5180,000(programcost)perindividual,along with the cost to staff the utility, including direct personnel costs and hidden costs (e.g., operator attrition). Coment 199-2 points out that a current degree program provided onsite
. , costs of $300,000 per year and that this cost would escalate if
' required to meet the 1991 deadline.
Resolution: As noted in the ANPRM, if the Comission elects to proceed with the degree rule, regulatory and backfit analyses will be completed, including cost estimates for the industry and the NRC.
- 3. Assuming regular shift rotation, could the typical senior opera-ter obta'in an engineering or technical degree prior to January;1, 19917 i
a Comments 2-1, 7-3, 13-2, 13-17, 13-18, 17-5, 18-5, 21-5, 22-3, 26-2, 27-2, 28-2, 34-5, 37-2, 34-3, 39-3, 42-8, 43-8, 47 2, 48-2, 49-3, 52-4, 53-2, 56-11, 61-9, 62-3, 62-14, 65-10, 65-20, 65-44, 65-55, 65-69, 65-97,65-104, 66-2, 73-2, 76-17, 77-5, 77-7, 78-6, 80-14, 84-3, 88-1, 89-1, 95-6, 102-3, 104-3, 106-2, 113-11, 114-6, 117-2, 120-2, 122-4, 123-4, 126-10 128-3, 131-3, 132-5, 133-9, 133-11, 134-8, 138-11, 138-22, 141-12, 144-59, 144-60, 144-62, 144-63, 146-15, 148-12, 151-10, 153-11, 154-11, 156-9, 158-34, 159-9, 160-10, 161-7, 162-14, 163-6, 164-8,
19 computer-related usage fees (550,000), tutor salaries,($100,000),
and operator salaries ($1.750,000). Coment 180-9 estimates the annual operating costs would be: university fees (590,000),
computer charges ($5,000), tutor salaries ($20,000) . operator salaries (5550,000), and retraining of degree-related topics (585,000). Coment 180-11 notes that operator salaries (5550,000) refer to graduating five licensed operators each year to cover expected attriston, and retraining costs (185,000) refer to the salaries of operators and instructors for two additional days per week required for new requalification items. Coment 180-10 forecasts these costs' if engineers are used to fulfill the new staffing: implementation (5400,000) and operation ($200,000).
Coment 180-12 notes that the implementation cost (5400,000) assumes implementation would consist of training five engineers to assume senior operator duties and the operation cost (5200,000) assumes that five additional engineers complete the program every two years. Coment 186-20 and 186-21 estimate increased costs resulting from increased turnover to be $600,000 or higher. Coment 186-22 estimat,es additional costs of 5480,000 per year to provide an onsite degree program for 30 senior operators,. Comment 186-23 estimates $120,000 per year to train engineering students to be nonlicensed operators. Assuming the.
d 8 utility hired an inexperienced individual without a degree pro gram and put him through a four year degree program, Coment 184-7 estimates: (a) the annual salary and benefit cost would be approximately 530,000. (b) further tuition and school-related expenses per individual would be at least 3150,000, and(c)the additional expense per senior license to offer a degree opper-tunity to currently licensed senior operators. Assuming full-time college attendance, Coments 192-4, 192-5, and 192-6 esti-sate the cost to be approximately 550,000 per man year of college (a total cost of over $1,000,000 for the typical utility); addi-tional costs for added training requirements for sentor operaters; increased attrition costs and resultant training and replacement
21 164-9, 165-18, 165-19, 166-13, 166-14, 166-15, 107-14, 171-13, 175-7, 176-33, 177-8, 177-9, 180-13, 184 27, 186-24. 188-8, 191-31, 191-33, 192-7, 195-11, 196-17, 197-15, 197-16, 197-17, 197-18, 198-15, 198-34, 202-6, 206-7, 206-8, and 209-3 indicate that the typical senior operator could not obtain an engineering or technical degree prior to January 1,1991, assuming regular shift rotation, for one or more of these reasons: no utility programs currently in place; no need for a degree requirement for senior operators; senior operators have few, if any, college credits; college credit for operator experience is not likely; most senior operators have been out of school for many years; only part-time work in a degree program would be itkely; unusual operating schedules (e.g., forced outages and refueling); com-peting demands of Itcense and requalification training; logistics of traveling to and from a college or university; added stress and fatigue on operators; regular shift rotation is unrealistic; colleges do not cater to the needs of tne swing shift work 3r; tremendous hardship on the operator and the operator's family; and obtaining a degree would mean more shift work. Comments 127-4, 165-19, 173-3, 174-3, and 199-3 state it would be pos-sible bu( er emely difficult for the typical senior operator,
- who is on regular shift rotation, to obtain an engineering or .
I 8 technical degree prior to January 1,1991. Comment 144-23 points out that shif t work precludes sending everyone at once, or teaching the subject only once, or having enough people available at one time to fill a reasonably-stred class. Coreent 165-60 reports the following, based on a survey of 49 licensed operators and shift technical advisors, regarding how the con- j templated requirement would affect respondents: obtain a degree I (19 respondents), remain in present position (6 respondents),
change career path (5 respondents), and obtain senior operator license before 1991 (2 respondents).
22 .
Resolut hn: If the Commission opts to proceed with the degree rule, the staf f recommends that the deadline be four, years sub-sequent to the date of publication of.the final rule.
~
- 4. What type of engineering degree would be appropriate, e.g.,
nuclear, electrical, mechanical, industrial, and so on?
Coments 7-4, 28-4, 43-9, 53-3, 56-12, 57-4, 58-5, 71-10, 84 4, 104-4, 120-3, 120-4, 120-5, 134-9, 144-64, 146-16, 153-12, 154-12, 159-10, 160-11, 171-14, 196-18, and 209-4 suggest these de-grees: engineering (nuclear; mechanical with emphasis on ther-medynamics, fluid flow, and electrical theory; electrical; chemical; metallurgy;andindustrial)engineeringtechnology, mechanical technology, chemistry, physical science, management or radiation protection engineering technology, nuclear science, engineering physics, and health physics (provided additional facility training is offered). Coments 130-7, 170-5, and 191-34 suggest a new degree program, encompassing' operational nuclear engineering technology (e.g., Regents College) as being most appropriate. Comment 156-10 notes a degree that includes fluid flow, thermodynamics, and reactor theory. Coments 30-6, 34-6, 37c3, 38-4, 47-3, 48-3, 49-4, 68-3, 55-6, 55-10, 61-26,
- 65-105, 68-3, 73-3, 76-18, 106-3, 114-7, 118-2, 122-5, 131-4, ;
- 132-6, 133-12, 138-23, 144-39, 148-13, 149-6, 151-11, 152-18, 157-20, 159-11, 161-8, 163-7, 164-10, 175-8. 7.76-34, 177-10, 180-14, and 197-19 state that no single engineering degree would be appropriate for the job of senior operator. Coments 165-20, 166-16, 173-4, 178-6, 184-19, 186-25, 197-20, 198-16, 198-17, 199-4, 202-7, and 206-9 state that any science or engineering degree should be acceptable (supplemented by operator training) if the degree rule becomes a requirement. Comment *13-19 states that aptitude, job performance, and technical and administrative knowledge of plant operations are the appropriate criteria for senior operator candidates. Coment 20-3 indicates that by 1
O 23 limiting the degree acceptability to engineering, sang operators in rural areas would not be eligible for senior operator posi-tions because of the lack of engineering programs in those areas.
Coment 26-3 states the degree type should be the curricula that offers lastruction in nuclear power plant operations ~and acci-dent ar,alysis. Coment 39-4 opts for a two year associates de-gree requirerent. Cements 139-1, 139-2, 139-3, 139-4, 139-6, and 139-7 point out the distinction between these types of de-grees: technical college degree (at the two year college level),
engineering degree (at the four year college level), and engi-neering technology level (between the technical degree and the engineering level). The comenter suggests that the engineering technology degree is well suited to individuals such as those employed at nuclear power plants because it encompasses basic engineering sciences rather than design and theory. Coment 144-38 expresses the concern that the Bachelor of Professional Studies Degree say not correspond to an engineering degree.
Comment 162-15 indicates that experience, training, and licens-
) ing better prepares an individual rather than the college de-gree. Coments 188-9 and 188-10 state that a degree requirement for sento,r operators is inappropriate, and if implemented, it would further add to the difficulties and expense alread/ ex- ;
a perienced in providing operator training. Comment 166-17referk to NUREG/CR-4411 which reports that regardless of the type of degree, it would only cover 50 percent of the required knowledge of the senior operator position. Comment 195-12 states that task analyses by several utt11 ties and the NRC (NUREG-1750) have indicated that the specific knowledge and skills required by a senior operator are not provided by any engineering curriculum, Comment 166-18 states it is inappropriate to specify a parti-cular engineering or science degree because an individual's experience, self-study or training could sake up for any deft-ciencies. Coment 167-15 states that nuclear, electrical, sechanical, and industrial degrees would not prepare an
- - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - - - _ _ _ _ . _ . _ ]
O 24 individual for the senior operator position, rather, a curricu-lum based on the position's actual requirements would be best.
Coment 192-8 states a hybrid degree would be approp'riate, in-l cluding engineering courses, management, human relations, and comunications. Coment 128-4 states that the appropriate type of degree may vary with each utility.
Resolution: The Commission notes that the ANPRM specified that the contemplated degree rule would require senior operators to possess a baccalaureate degree in engineering or physical science. This continues to be the proposed requirement with degrees in other areas being considered case-by-case.
- 5. What has been the industry's experience in securing college-equivalent credit for nuclear power plant training and/or work experience?
Comments 7-5, 20-4, 39-5. 48-4, 49-5, 55-11, 56-13, 57-5, 61-10,65-106, 84-5, 104-5, 106-4, 114-8, 118-3, 128-5, 130-8, 131-5, 133-13, 134-10, 138 24, 144-65, 144-66, 146-17, 151-13, 152-19, 153-13, 156-11, 158-37, 159-12, 160-12, 161-9, 163-8, 164-11, 166-19,.167-16, 167-17, 167-18, 170-6, 171-15, 173-5, 174-5,
- 175-9,176-35,180-15,184-20,186-26,188-11,191-36,192-9,f
' 196-19, 196-20, 196-21, 197-21, 199-5, 202 8, 206-10, and 109-5 reveal that industry's success in obtaining college credit for operator training or experience ranges from none to some (e.7.,
up to 80 semester hours). Coment 120-6 notes that for 15 utility organizations from 20 to 30 percent of the technical courses in a degree program could be completed through industry courses with college-equivalent credit recommendations. Com-ment 120-7 and 139-9 point out that two colleges are awarding college credits for the completion of reactor operator and senior operator examinations, which the commente believes is unwise, because the NRC examinations are plant specific. Com-ment 141-13 states that the availability of college-equ halent
, .=
]
t 25 l
credit for nuclear power plant training and experiesce depends on the colleges in proximity of each plant. Comment 186 27 states that junior colleges are more likely to grant credit for i training and work experience. Comment 71-11 references individ-ual operators' results in obtaining credit for training and ex-perience reported in a newsletter published by the Professional Reactor Operator Society ("Operators Return to College," Comuni-cator, Spring 1986, Volume 4, Number 2). Comment 132-7 notes 4
that industry's offorts have been successful in certain areas as I detailed in "A Guide to Educational Prograss," published by the University of the State of New York. Comment 139 8 points out ;
j that both the American Council on Education and New York's l l national program on Non Collegiate $ponsored Instruction (PONSI) i have been involved in evaluating industry training programs for l a number of years. The cosseenter also states more utilities are securing PONSI evaluation so their training courses may be used
- in college degree programs. Comment 145-9 notes that 57 credits I were received because of military experience and College Level l 1
Examination Program (CLEP) credit. Comment 195-13 indicates some college credit has been provided for military training.
l 4
, ,, Resolutton: If the Commission elects to proceed with rulemaking s andtheconcurrentpolicystatement,thelatterwouldencot.ragk licensees to continue to obtain college credit for appropriate 1 operator training and work experience. t l
l 6. should there be sistlar experience requirements for one-of a-I kind advanced reactors 7 (
i i
, Comments 2-2, 20-5, 47 4, 65 37, 65-84, 65 85, 65 96, 84 6, 112-1, 120 8, 130-9, 133 14, 138 25, 144 67, 158-38, 159-13, 162-16, 163-9, 173-6, 177 11, 178 7, 191 37, 196-22, and 199 6 l l
l indicate there should be similar experience requirements for l j
one-of-a-kind advanced res: tors. Comments 154-13, 160 13, and !
186 28 state that the experience requirements would not be (
26 ,
applicable to advanced reactors. Coments 198-18 and 20611 state the conterplated requirements should be dealt,with on a case-by case basis. Coenents 7-6, 34-7, 43 10, 48 5, 49-6, 56-14, 61-11, 76-19, 104 6, and 134-11 state sufficient lati- -
tude should be allowed in the rule to allow satisfaction of the experience requirement by plant-specific training (e.g., simula-ter training) for those plants where experience at another plant would not be meaningful. Comments 141-14, 151-14, 151-15, 166-20, and 176-36 express the concern that the degree require-ment say be appropriate, initially, to staff advanced reactors by technically degreed personnel; however, the contemplated hot operating experience of one year could present a significant impediment to the coenercialization of an advanced reactor.
Cossent 156-12 states a college degree would be an unnecessary requirement. Comment 202-9 states no knowledge of any plans to construct and operate a one-of-a-kind advanr.ed reactor. Coment 157-21 requested that the operating experience requirements be more clearly defined. Comment 174-6 opposes sandatory educa-tional and experience requirements beyond those currently re-quired by Federal regulations.
Resolution: It is the intent of the contemplated degree rule to also' require senior operators who operate one-of-a-kind ad ,
e vanced reactors to satisfy the same experience requirements al described in the MPM. This means that at least one of two years of operating experience would be with a stallar coanercial nuclear reactor operating at greater than 20 percent power.
- 7. What are the combined impacts of requiring (1) two years of re-sponsible nuclear power plant experience, (11) the degree re-quirement, and (iii) one year "hot" operating requf rement for the position of senior operator?
- a. Consents 7 7, 34 8, 37-4, 39-6, 130-10, 131-6, 138 26, 160 14, 176 38, 191-38, 192-10, and 102-11 indicate at
e' 27 least one or more of the three requirements art, reasonable and can be satisfied. Comments 56 15, 61-12, 73 4, 76-20, 104 7, 148 14, and 173-7 express concern that at least one or more of the requirements are incapable of being satis-fled by January 1, 1991, or negotiated (e.g., with unions).
Connent 196-23 states that the combined isipacts cannot be l
'dentified untti the program is put in place. Comments d 6, 26-4, 47-5, 48-6, 49 7, 53 4, 114-10, 151-16, 156-13, s56-39, 158 42, 167-19, 167 20, 180 16, 180 17, 186 30,
) ,
168-13, 197 22, and 197 23 note that the not result of the requirements will be a reduction of operating experience on shift which would lead to an overall decrease in the oper-ating safety of the plant. Coanents 43 11, 68-4, 71-12, 44 7, 120 9, 132-9, 134 12, 152-20, and 176-37 indicate the requirements will bring about difficulty in filling the '
senior operator position. Comnents 57-6 and 174-7 state the requirements will provide no improvement over current
! license qualification requirements. Comment 80-3 maintains the requirements will lead to a reduction in operator training offered by industry. Comment 16413 notes that the requirteent for hot operating experience would reduce the number of non-degreed operators on shift in order to ;
make evallable positions for degreed persons to prepare f6r the shift manager's , fob. Comment 128-6 indicates that the overall ispect would be increased operating costs resulting from increased operator's wages which in turn will be trans- !
ferred to consumers. Comments 141-45, 153-14, 153 15, l l
153-16, 153 17, 153 18, 154 14, 158 43, 159 14, 171 16, j 173 8, 174 8, 175-10, 177-12, 177-13, 177-14, 195 14, 196 25, 198 19, 202 10, 206 12, and 209-6 state that l several adverse results can be expected from the coe.bined l i
j impacts of requiring senior operators to have degrees and l specific experience. Among these are the time and exper-1ence needed to obtain senior operator status would be l J !
l i I
l
28 l
increased substantially; the pool of senior operator candi-dates would be diminished; acceptance of degre'ed in'dividuals with less operating ability; preclude non-degreed individ- '
uals from becoming senior operators; reduction in the over-all experience level of senior operators; and degreed ,
personnel would have to become seabers of bargaining units to obtain hot operating experience. Coseent 144 68 ex-presses the concern that the contemplated experience re- i quirement of three years in too short. The coseenter sug-gested the following sinimum experience requirements:
(a) at least one yu. U acxili6ry operator, (b) era year
. of training for a reWr operator license, (c) at least two years performing reactor operator duties, and (d) ene t
. year of training for a senior cperator Ifeense. Comment l 149-5 expresses the concern that the contemplated rule t under estimates the training time required to obtain plant l knowledge demanded of a senior operator candidate. Com-
- ments 154 15, 159-15, 162-17, 196-23, and 196-24 indicate the hot operating experience requirement could severely ;
limit engineer candidates for the senior operator position, especially for new plants. Cosuunts 164-12, 165 41, and 166 21 state that the combined impact would interfere with end curtail an individual's career and turn the senior [
[ operator and shif t supervisor position into ones occupied I by transients resulting in unsafe plant conditions. Com-i sent 140 18 notes that experience requirements are an in-appropriate sensure of requisite qualifications, while
- n aluation of performance based training is preferred.
Cossent 188 12 states that the combined impact would be to upset the foundation upon which nuclear operations has been
! based over the past 30 years, namely, utilizing non deg l j operators. Comments 196 26, 196-27, and 196-28 point out l
) these combined impacts: additional personnel requirements. l development of long-ters csreer prograss'to retain degreed l
and licensed operators, and uncertainty that a preferred f i !
c
~
. s e e 29 type of senior operator would be provided (e.g.g experience indicates that the more experienced non-degreed personnel exceed the performance of degreed engineers in the operat-ing sector). Comment 199-7 states that the combined 1.rpact would be a burden on individuals who possess associate degrees (anc an even greater burden for those individuals ;
without associate degrees).
Resolution: As noted 'n the ANPRM, if rulemaking is elected ,
by the Commission, a regulatory analysis would be completed to support such a rule and its requiremen.,s.
- b. Commants 21-6, 28-5, 118-4, 133-15, and 163-10 request r.larification on the following: "responsible nuclear plant experience," and "hot operating requirement." Comment 146-18 suggests that one year of hot operating experience should be defined as any power level above critical. ,
Resolution: The Commission has specified both of these experience requirements in NUREG-1021 entitled "Operator I Licensing Examiner Standards." In brief, the Commission notes: The responsible nuclear piant experience may incidde f -
but is not limited to a staff engineer beim involved in khe
! 8
{ day-to-day operations of the plant and hot operating experi-ence means participation in reactor and plant operation at power levels of at least 20 percent power operation. -.
/
- c. Comment 188-14 asks: Will this requirement pertain to j l
the instructors conducting the senior operator level training? Will it also be applied to licenses held by staff personnel (e.g., operations managers and operations supervisors)? ,
--. , v-* - ,, . . - - ,------~.-,-----,._--,--.~,y-- .--y,m-, -.- ,- ---. m ,-.,---c-,~. ..v-. ,, ----, .- - - -
l 30 Resolution: In response, the Commission notes that it is the intent of the contemplated degree rule that all
nuclear power plant personnel who apply for a senior oper- l ator license, af ter the deadline, would be affected by the degree requirement.
S. Should the contemplated degree requirement for senior operators be supplemented with or replaced by intensive focused training requirements in severe accidents for nuclear power plant operators?
Comments 2-3, 10-2, 10-6, 17-2, 18-4, 19-2, 21-7, 22-7, 23-4, 26-5, 27-3, 28-6, 29-4, 34-9, 37-5, 38-6, 42-7, 43-3, 43-12, 45-2, 48-7, 48-22, 49-8, 51-13, 53-6, 55-7, 55-12, 60-4, 61-13,
. 63-5, 63-6, 64-6, 65-11, 65-21, 65-41, 65-45, 65-56,65-107, 68-5, 70-5, 70-6, 71-3, 73-5, 76-8, 76-9, 76-21, 77-2, 77-3, 77-8, 77-12, 77-13, 78-2, 78-3, 78-4, 78-9, 80-1, 84-8, 88-2, 104-8, 106-5, 116-13, 121-2, 122-8, 128-7, 131-7,'132-10, 133-16, 1 i
138-27, 144-76, 144-77, 144-78, 145-10, 148-15, 149-3, 149-4,
- 149-8, 151-17, 153-19, 153-20, 156-14, 156-15, 156-19, 158-45, 159-16, 161-11, 162-18, 163-11, 173-9, 176-40, 176-101, 176-102, 176-49, I77-15, 180-20, 188-15, 191-16, 195-15, 196-29, 197-24 . ;
202-11, 2'12-12, 206-13, 207-3, and 209-7 indicate that control j room ope'stors should be provided training in severe accident management in lieu of a degree requirement. Comment 178-8 and 191-39 favor supplementing the contemplated degree rule with severe accident training as deemed necessary to prevent and cope '.
with severe accidents. Comment 157-55 reports that respondents to a Professional Reat..or Operator Society's survey responded as followt regarding the question under consideration:, supple-mented (13 percent), replaced (60 percent), and neither (27 per- l
, cent). Comment 186-33 maintains severe accident training would l be more appropriate for the plant technical support team. Com-
' ment 186-34 says the best defense against severe accidents is a
31 skilled, knowledgeable shift crew, functioning as a synergistic team and supplemented by the plant technical support team.
Comment 150-19 states that the use of plant-specific simulators by all plants would significantly improve operator re'sponse capability during accident conditions. Coments 20-7, 22-2, 40-8, 51-7, 51-10, 52-1, 59-20, 60-3, 63-7, 64-7, 65-13, 65-98, 66-4, 70-7, 84-23, 85-5, 87-2, 91-5, 91-6, 98-6, 102-7, 102-10, 102-12, 114-1, 114-2, 114-3, 114-11, 122-7, 126-6, 130-11,
- 134-13, 137-6, 141-15, 141-16, 141-17, 141-43, 141-44, 144-51,
. 144-52, 151-12, 153-6, 153-7, 167-3, 167-11, 167-12, 167-22, and 176-99 suggest that licensed operators be provided enhanced training. Cowents 57-7, 62-4, 65-70, 71-5, 71-6, 133-27, 146-19, 147-10, 147-11, 150-4, 150-5, 150-15, 150-16, 150-52, 152-21, 152-22, 154-6, 154-17, 154-18, 155-2, 155-3, 157-22,
! 158-44. 160-15, 164-14, 164-15, 164-16, 164-17, 165-21, 165-22, 165-23, 165-24, 165-25, 165-2' 4 6-22, 166-23, 166-24, 166-25,
(
166-26, 166-27, 166-32, 167-21, .70-8, 171-17, 175-11, 176-41, 184-21, 186-31, 186-32, 1 0 20, 199-9, 199-10, 206-2, 208-2, and 210-9 indicate that training in severe accident management and engineering expertise are already being provided, for example, through emergency operating procedures, accredited operator training, and Comission policy on engineering expertise on ;
I l
s shift; thus, these efforts should be monitored and assessed in lieu of a degree requirement. Coment 154-7 states that train-ing and expe?ience are the important ingredients for effective accident management. Comment 141-1 states that the current level of engineering and accident management expertise on shift is sufficient. Comments 96-3, 118-5, 147-5, and 192-12 state that any shortcomings in operating or accident management expertire on shift should be addressed through plant-specific training programs or existing training programs. Comment 39-7 indicates
! that training in severe accidents would not be feasible because l it would require a training program for each different type of plant design. Comment 56-16 indicates severe accident training I
32 would be appropriate for shift technical advisors but not for operators. Comment 7-8 indicates a degree requirement for senior operatars would be more cost effective than further de-tailed training requirements. Comment 156-16 opts for NRC to promote having the operator training programs at each utility develop accreditation through INPO. Comment 102-16 suggests, in the event of a site nuclear accident, that each utility estab-lish a team of nuclear accident specialists (i) who would be on call 24-hours per day and (ii) whc are specially trained per-sunnel that are permanently assigned to each facility. Comments 165-57 and 165-58 report on a survey of control room operators and shift technical advisors where the majority of these in-dividuals expressed the belief that senior operators should be required to receive technical training rather than col hge courses in engineering and reactr- theory that address design
- bases events and severe accidents. Comment 71-4 notes that human factors design problems still exist at some plants which I could contribute to accident conditions of plants. Comments d-20, 46-21, and 46-22 list the following conclusions based on an emergency condition task analysis for the first 60 minutes of an accident condition as follow. The Shift Manager and Control i Room Supervisor cannot perform independent accident analysis tasks regardless of accident level. TheShiftSupportSupervifor can only perform independent accident analysis during lesser i events, i.e., minimum event. The only person available to per-form independent accident analysis is the Shift Technical Advisor.
l Notification and continual communication with the NRC creates a real problem by tying up either the Shift Manager or Shift Tech- i nical Advison during the first 30 minutes of the accident. !
l Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commisston (b) approve separating the training and educational issues discussed in the ANPRM, (b) provide guidance on which degree rule option should I
i
33 be developed, and (c) note the proposal to incorporate any needed changes to the Policy Statement on Training and Qualifi-cations of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel to address severe acci-dent training with other changes resulting from the two year trial program.
- 9. What are the appropriate criteria for assessing a utility's certification that an individual with a bar:alaureate degree in other t.han engineering or the physical sciences has "demon" strated high potential" for the senior operator posittore?
Commenters 2-4, 21-8, 28-7, 56-17, and 171-18 state the utility should have the sole responsibility for evaluating and promoting an individual. Comments 73-6 and 130-12 suggest that a working group such as the one recomended by Comissioner Asselstino be employed to enumerate the appropriate criteria of demonstrated high potential. Coment 173-10 and 199-11 note the use of nationally recognized tests for entrance evaluations, continuing evaluations during the training phase, and periodic perforcance evaluations after becoming a licensed operator. Comments 7-9 and 49-9.suggest that baccalaureate degrees in other than engi-
- neering or the physical sciences should be considered for in- -
8 di"iduals who meet one of these criteria: completion of INPO's accredited training program or a court,e like GPG-01 for Shift Technical Advisors, completion of at least two years of super-visory experience at a similar comercial power plant, service as a Navy engineering officer of the watch, three to five years experience in the operations department on shift, or rotation through all the various positions at a plant that precede the senior operator position. Comments 13-5,13-22, anti 192-13 note that no company will censider an individual for a senior opentor license unless the individual has demonstrated high potential.
Comment 20-8 states that degrees other than engineering or physical science should be specified. Comments 27-4, 57-8, l
34 -
61-14, 65-46, 84-9, 89-3,104-9,118-6,131-9,138-j!8, and 158-46 indicate the results on the NRC examinationsy for senior operators'should be the criterion for demonstrated high poten-tial. Comment 65-99 suggests a e.omprehensive examination, as for example, the qualifying examination for Merchant' Marine Officers would be the i.ppropriate criteria. Coment 178-9 notes ,
that NRC should conduct oral and written examinations to assess a utility's certification of demonstrated high potential. Com-ments 34-10, 43-13, 65-22, 114-12, 128-8, 132-11, 134-14, 141-18, 151-18, 152-23, 154-19, 154-20, 159-17, 164-18, 165-27, 166-28, 170-9, 174-13, 175-12, 176-14, 198-21, 202-13, and 206-14 state that a utility's certification of high potential should be based on an individual's experience or ability to do the job (e.g., successful completion of the senior operator training program). Coment 166-29 suggests generic examinations similar to the Engineer-in-Training with a nuclear emphasis would be appropriate to define demonstrated high potential.
Coment 209-8 states the criteria should be successful comple-tion of a hot license senior operator training and examinations together with documented experience. Coment 38-7 suggests that the appropriate criteria should be determined by means of a study, toment 47-6 states there is no appropriate criteria for
[ assessing demonstrated high potential.
that an individual with other than an engineering or physical Coment 120-10 expressjs science degree should either complete the core courses in nu-clear engineering technology or complete industry courses related to nuclear power plants. Coments 144-79 and 144-80 indicate these criteria of demonstrated high potential are important: desire to train, qualified to perform the function, and ability to overcome negative relations with operators. Com-ment 146-20 indicates that these criteria 're indicative of demonstrated high potential for the senior operator position:
baccalaureate degree in engineering technology, a professional engineer's (PE) lic.ense obtained by successful completion of T
~
35 the PE examination, 60 semester hours of college leve,1 courses in engineering or science, an associates degree if, physical science, leidership exhibited, experience in noclear industry, and medically qualified. Coments 156-17 and 161-12 ' state the following are appropriate criteria to demonstrate high potential for the senior operator position: in plant experience, operat-ing capabilities, and management potential. Comment 157-23 states these criteria as indicative of high potential for the senior operator position: operational competence, technical knowledge, force of character, and integrity to assume the shift supervisor position. Coment 167-24 indicates these are import-ant indicators of demonstrated high potential: attitude toward safety, supervisory and leadership qualities, and aptitude on the job and in training. Coments 191-40 and 191-41 state these are the appropriate criteria: Anowledge and aptitude needed to control the plant, comon sense, sound judgment, leadership ability, and demonstrated performance during classroom, simula-tor, and other training. Coment 160-17 states t' hat high poten-t tial is a product of the selection process, the operation exper-i fence, and the training program. Coments 162-19, 163-12, and 184-22 maintain that the current criteria for experience, know-l - ledge, and ability used for determining potential for the senior I 8 operator position must be continued. Coment 167-23 suggests that each course in a degree program other than engineering or physical science should be evaluated on the basis of its appli-cability to nuclear power plant operations. Comments 176-45, 177-16, 195-16, and 197-25 indicate that candidates for the senior operatnr position are (and should be) selected based on demonstrating knowledge of the plant, good management practices, operational ability, above average aptitude, a favorable atti-tude, success in passing performana-based training courses, performance on requalification examinations, and leadership.
Comment 180-21, 180-22, and 186-35 indictate that an individual's high potential can be based on a combination of the following I
~
l 36 factors: performance in reactor operator position,s, core s on an operator aptitude test, performance in a senior operator training program, demonstrated leadership skills, and score on an engi-neering aptitude test and/or performance in engineeri~ng and science courses designed to teach nuclear power plant principles, j Comment 188-16 says utility certification that the individual !
demonstrates the judgment, organized thought processes, and on-the-job performance should be sufficient. Comment 193-11 L and 196-30 note that observed performance on the job, performanced-based training programs combined with on-the-job ,
training, and simulator training are the proper six to prepare an individual for the senior operator position. Comment 8-5 states that the operator responsibility at nuclear power plants is of the level to require certified professionals, with capa-bilities measured against community accepted national standards, itke university accreditation processes.
Resolution: In response, the staff recommends that the Com-mission: approve separating the training and educational i ssues discussed in the ANPRM, and provide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed. l i !
8 10. What are the implications of this contemplated rulemaking on !
decisions concerning future reactor designs 7 ;
l Comments 2-5, 7-10, 13-6, 20-9, 48-8, 56-18, 61-15, 71-14, 73-7, [
84-10, 114-13, 120-11, 132-12, 134-15, 138-29, 141-19, 151-19, 152-24, 154-21, 156-18, 158-47, 164-19, 165-142, 166-30, 170-10, 173-11, 174-14, 176-46, 195-17, and 199-12 indicate the contem- l i
plated rule would have no significant impact on futbre reactor designs. Comment 159-18 states that the contemplated degree requirement should be waived for future reactor designs. Com-ment 178-10 states that it is possible that more advanced !
t
,- , - . . _ , , . - _ . . _ _ - , - _ . - . ,. ,, .ry. , - , - _ .._,_ _ - . - , _ _ _ __.__-_y-_ . _ _ , , _ , _ - ,m,,
37 designs could necessitate onhanced operator qualificatio.ns.
Comments 28-Cmnd39-9expresstheconce.rnthatthekontemplated rule woulJ resuit in a shortage of quait fled operators to fill senior eperator positions at new plants. Comment 43-14 states that tre hot operating experience requirement being satisfied on a ',imilar designed unit would discourage utilities from pur-chasing a ne design. Comment 191-42 states that the hot oper-ating experience requirement would provide yet another reason for utilities not to select nuclear power. Comment 196-31 l rtates it would be extremely difficult to meet the experience requirement on future reactor designs.
Comment 144-81 indi-cates that future reactor designs will be adversely affected ,
because it will take longer for personnel to become qualified.
Cor:ments 161-13, 186-36, and 202-14 state that future reactor designs will depend less on operator actions, provide greater margins of safety, resulting in no need to increase senior operator educational requirements. Comment 163-13 states that,
. if future reactor control rooms are designed for'an engineer /
operator, the contemplated rule could adversely affect the ability of non-degreed reactor operators to safely react in an emergency situation.
, Resolution: If the Commission elects the degree rule option, I the staff recommends that the rule be applicable to future reactor designs.
- 11. Should the NRC require specialized training in severe reactor ,
accidents beyond inadequate core cooling and/or require extension of emergency operating procedures into the realm of more severe accidents instead of or in addition to haccalaureata degrees?
What are the tap 11 cations of the work by Industry Degraded Core Rulemaking Program (IDCOR) for the qualifications, training, and emergency operating procedures for licensed reactor operators and senior operators?
my w - mw w -- e --v--vmw--e.wwm-------vm- ,.,,se-ow e-,.-,,-*m-
38 Comments 7-11, 39-10, 47-7, 57-9, 61-16, 62-5, 65-57, 89-4,'
114-14,114-15,118-7,132-13,138-30,146-21,150-6,150-7, 350-8, 150-9, 152-25, 154-24, 170-11, 173-13, 176-4'3, 176-44, 176-47, 177-17, 184-4, 184-5, 184-23, 186-14, 188-17, 198-8, 198-22, 199-13, 199-14, and 210-7 state that no such training is needed because anticipated scenarios would fall in the scope of current operator training and qualifications, operator experi-ence, control room indn*"ion, hardware modifications, emergency operatf.59 procedures, emergency response centers, ,
increases in shift staffing, and human factors considerations. ,
Comments 153- 21, 154 - 22 , 154- 23 , 158- 48 , 161- 1 a 175-13, and 176-13 state that accident-related specialized training is on-going (e.g., drill as a team on plant-referenced simulator.0 Comment 167-25 states that the NRC should continue to monitor performance-based training developed by utilities using the Train-ing Systems Development approach rather than developing pre-scriptions for specialized training. Comments 157-24 and 173-12 indicate that specialized training in severe reactor accidents !
has little in common with a degree curriculum. Coments 20-10, I i 21-9, 26-6, 28-9, 34-11, 37-6, 48-9, 49-11, 51-4, 53-91, 56-19, .
! 65-23, 65-47,65-100, 65-108, 71-15, 76-22, 88-3, 104-10, 128-9, 131-10, 133-17, 134-16, 141-20, 144-82, 144-83, 151-20, 151-21, 159-10,159-20,162-20,162-21,163-14,163-20,174-15,176-1p, ;
178-11, 191-43, 197-26, 197-55, 197-56, 202-15, and 209-9 sug-gest that control room operators be provided specialized train- j ing in severe accidents beyond inadequate core cooling instead '
of a degree rule. Comments 167-26 and 180-24 state that addi-tional requirements are not necessary because any accident that is more severe than ar, unusual event would activate the plant's Technical Support Center, the 0parational Support Center, and other required assistance. Comments 167-27, 192-14, 195-18, and 206-15 suggest that training in severe accidents be part of the overall operator training program developed by each utility or in conjunction with existing processes, i.e., Westinghouse f
39 Owners' Group and INPO rather than a training requirement pre-scribed by NRC. Comment 157-16 suggests that concerns about plant conditions beyond design basis should be addressed in the !
context of design approval and plant licensing regulation.
Comments 163-15 and 186-37 indicate that the Industry Degraded Core Rulemaking Program's (IDCOR's) Technical Summary Report stated that current procedures are adequate to sitigate severe accidents. Comment 166-31 states that IDCOR has not specifically identified additional training issues for licensed operators.
Comments 166-33, 176- G , and 180-23 state that the IDCOR work may be appropriate to enhance the existing severe accident training. Comment 186-38 states that since IDCOR findings do not result in a consensus of opinion, training could be counter productive. Coanent 191-44 maintains that the staff should make the industry aware of any specific concerns, including any raised by subsequent IDCOR work for consideration and comment.
Cosnent 196-32 states that IDCOR and other evaluations should be analyzed in detail to 'Jetermine the value of developing proce-dures to handle events beyond the design basis, while operator training should bs developed from job / task analysis to address anyresu]tingissues. Comment 171-19 states that research and
- analysis of inadequate core cooling is not complete enough to .
8 warrs nt changes (e.g. , Nrdware, procedures, or training) to c c,,$ - with inadequate core cooling phenomena. Coenents 191-19, 191-20, and 191-21 state that the NRC should make the utilities aware of any severe accidents - beyond inadequate core cooling -
about which it is concerned as the current reviews of the in-l dustry's generic emergency procedure guidelines are completed.
Resolution: Th staff recommends that the commisston: (a) approve separating the training and educational issues dis-cussed in the ANPRM, (b) provide guidance on which degree rule option ';nould be developed, and (c) note that the staff would prcpose to incorporate any necessary changes to the Policy Statement on Training and Qualifications of Nuclear Power Plant
40 '
Staff Personnel to address severe accident training with other changes resulting from the two year trial program.' .
12.
What is an appropriate cut-off date for allowing only one i
N-examination for those senior operator applicants without a degree who apply for a license just prior to January 1, 19917 ;
tomments 7-12, 20-11, &7-5, 28-10, 39-11, 43-15, 48-10, 49-12, 56-20, 57-10, 61-17, 62-6, 65-24, 65-48, 65-72, 71-16, 76-23, 84-11, 88-4, 89-5, 114-16, 118-8, 120-12, IJ0-13, 132-14, 133-18, 134-17, 138-31, 141-21, 146-28, 151-22, 152-26, 154-38, 157-25, ,
158-49, 159-21, 160-18, 161-15, 162-22, 163-16, 164-20, 165-144, 166-34, 167-28, 171-20, 173-17, 175-14, 176-51, 177-18, 178-12, 180-25, 184-24, 186-39, 188-18, 191-45, 192-15, 195-19, 196-33, ;
197-27, 197-28, 197-29, 198-23, 199-15, 202-16, 206-16, and 209-10 mention t.hese cut-off dates: no change in current number of re-examinations allowed; no cut-off date; no cut-off date for applications received prior to January 1,1991; January 1,1991; the year 2000; one year after the initial failure; December 31, 1990; eight months after the first failure; no less than two years after the initial failure; six to nine sonths after the ,
4 -
initial failure; April 1,'1991; one re-examination at any date ;
8 after the initial failure; two years after implementation; six I years after implementation of rulemaking; and two attempts. '
Corment 144-84 states the cut-off date should be plant specific.
l Comment 158-50statesthaton-the-jobexperienceindicateswho ;
) is eligible to be a senior operator and as long as thess -
i teria are satisfied, candidates should be allowed to a,,pri for ;
! the position. .
~
- Resolution: If the Commission elects to proceed with rulemak-ing, the staff recommends allowing only one re-examination within one year after the initial failure.
- l i . l l
41
- 13. The proposed rule would require a senior operator applicant to have a baccalaureate degree in engineering or the ph'ysical sciences from an accredited university or college. What should be the appropriate definition (e.g., Department of Education, ABET, etc.) for "an accredited university or college?"
Comments 7-13, 7-22, 41-3, 58-4, 58-6, 120-15, 130-14, 137-2, and 167-29 suggest that senior operator applicants should have a baccalaureate degree in engineering or physical science from a college or university accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Comment 154-4 and 197-30 state that ABET criteria is confined mostly to theory-based courses which do not necessarily prepare an individual operator for accident management. Comment 166-36 states that ABET ac-creditation could inappropriately limit science degree graduates.
Comment 176-52 and 196-34 suggest that accreditation should include ABET, as well as the American Chemical Society, and State and regional agencies (e.g., State Department of' Education and regional associat. ions of schools and colleges). Coment 18819 notes if the intent is to provide degrees from well-known four-year eng,ineering institutions accepted by the entire academic comunity, ABET accreditation is appropriate; and if the intent is to provide a more flexible means to meet the contemplated requirement, ABET accreditation would be inappropriate. Coments 191-47, 191-48, and 191-49 communicate two disadvantages of ABET accreditation: the time rJquired to accredit engineering tech- '
nology programs and the inflexibility for making the changes needed to develop a meaningful program. Comments 8-3, 16-9, and 66-3 propose that the INPO get their training programs ac-credited by a college and, in turn, graduates would be awarded a baccalaureate degree, as an example, in Reactor Operations.
Comments 43-16, 68 6, 120-13, 139-10, 152-27, 154-25, 159-22, 160-19, 171-21, 180-26, 191-46, and 209 11 suggest that accred-itation from any one of the five regional ac:rediting bodies l
42 (e.g., Middle States Associatien) would be the appropriate de-finition for an accredited university or college.
r
. Comnents 146-21 and 173-18 suggest regional accreditation or accreditation by the Engineering Accreditation Agency. Comments l 49-13, 68-2, 84-12,114-17,174-17,191-50, and 197-31 indicate that the NRC, or the NRC with input from tha industry, INPO, and technology-oriented educational institutionn should define what accreditation means. Comments 76-24, 104-11, 133-19, 196-11, and 196-12 express the concern that no one single definition of accreditation will ensure that the same knowledge is taught or obtained by each individual. Comment 132-15 c.'efines the terms regional accreditation and professional accreditation as defined i by colleges and universities. Comment 134-18 states that the l institution granting the degree should be licensed by the ap- :
propriate State agency (e.g., Department of Education) to grant l P
the degree. Further, the commenter expresses the concern that i accreditation by other bodies such as ABET could' restrict access to off-campus programs that would afford on-shift operators the greatest likelihood of success in completing a degree program.
Comment 120-14 posits that the best candidate to be a' degreed senior operator is an operator with experience as a reactor operator' or senior operator. Comment 138-32 posits that the
, appropriatedefinitionforanaccrediteduniversityorcollegd l should be a senior operator license obtained through the NRC.
Comments 141-22, 151-23, 158-32, and 195-20 express concern that the focus should not be on whether the university or college be accredited but whether the education leading to the degree achieves the goals motivating the degree require-
! ment (e.g., for accredited and non-accredited institutions).
Comment 144-85 suggests that the Engineer's Council for Profes- l sional Development could be considered as an accrediting insti- f
)
- tution. Comment 156-20 indicatas that the professional engineer ;
- certificate should satisfy the definition of' accredited univer-i sity or college. Comment 186-40 notes that the requirements for l l l l
i
. - - ~ - - - , , _ - -
~
43 professional registration adfequately define an accredited uni-versity or college. Comments 157-26, 164-21, 165-28', 166-35, 177-19, and 202-17 state that there are several recognized ac-crediting institutions and adequate utility personnel practices, therefore, it is not necessary for the NRC to redefine accredi-tation acceptability. Comments 198-24, 199-16, and 206-17 state that all nationally recognized accreditation boards should be recognized. Comment 163-17 and 175-15 state that a degree re .
quirement is non-essential, therefore, a definition for accredi-tation is immaterial. Comments 191 26 and 192-16 indicate the definition for accreditation is indeterminable until a specific level of knowledge or curriculum is defined. Comments 80-7 and 80-16 note that the NRC has no control over college curricula as it does over utility training, therefore, initial determination and monitoring of acceptable curricuh may be unmanageable.
Resolution: If the Commission electa to proceed with rulemaking, the staff recommends that an accredit.ed university or college be defined ss an educational institut!ca in the United States which has been approved by a regional accrediting body.
- 14. What imme'diate impact will the contemplated rule have on ;
, operator morale? I i Comments 2-6, 13-7, 15-7, 17-6, 20-12, 25-2, 26-10, 37-7, 43-17, 48-11, 57-11, 65-9, 65-54,65-109, 68-7, 80-11, 100-6, 102-14, 122-2, 126-8, 128 10, 141-23, 144-57, 144-86, 144-87, 144-89, 145-6, 146-22, 150-3, 150-57, 151-4, 153-22, 153-23, 153-24, '
157-52, 158-54, 159-23, 163-23, 164-22, 165 29, 165-136, 166-37, 170-13, 171-22, 172-8, 173-19, 176-1, 180-27, 184-10, 189-2, 191-51, 191-52, 191-53, 193 8, 194-3, 196-37, 197-3, 202 18, and 203-3 state that the immediate impact of the degree rule would be negative. Comment 53-13 points gut a negative impact because of the perception that the onle way this requirement could be achieved would be to move non degreed shift supervisors out of
l 44 ,
their current positions. Comment 122-2 states that, senior operators might view the degree requirement as an 1 9pediment rather than a desirable objective. Comments 6-3, 7'14, 9-2, 13-23, 21-10, 26-7, 27-15, 27-16, 28-11, 32-1, 34-12, 38-8, 42-6, 43-27, 43-28, 49-14, 50-4, 55-13, 56-21, 59-11, 65-49, 65-90, 66-5, 73-8, 76-25, 77-9, 79-3, 79-5, 81-2, 82-4, 85-4, i l
92-1, 93-4, 99-5, 104-12, 109-4, 110-4, 111-4, 113-12, 114-18, 117-3, 118-9, 119-4, 123-1, 1'25-4, 125-10, 126-7, 127-3, 132-16, 133-20, 134-19, 135-5, 136-5, 138-6, 138-33, 141-24, 141-25, 141-28, 142-7, 144-12, 144-47, 144-90, 144-99, 147-9, 148-6, 150-28, 150-49, 151-24, 152-28, 153-5, 153-25, 153-26, 153-29, 154-26, 156-21, 157-27, 158-9, 158-56, 158-57, 158-61, 160-5, 160-20, 161-16, 162-1, 167-30, 169-2, 175-17, 176-6, 176-7, 176-56, 177-20, 184-25, 186-4, 186-8, 186-41, 188-20, 192-17, 193-10, 195-21, 195-22, 195-23, 196-10, 196-35, 196-36, 197-32, 198-25, 199-17, 203-4, 203-6, 206-18, 209-12, and 210-5 state that the impact will be negative because the career path will be .
blocked for those who do not have any desire to obtain a degree.
Comment 71-17 notes that the, promotion path for operators even when they do obtain a degree will be cut off because utilities may feel pressured to hire people with a degree but with little or no experience. Comment 27-14 states that senior operators without degrees, who would be "grandfathered," would be pre- F 8 vented from seeking jobs at other locations because they would' not be able to get licensed on another facility without a degree.
Comments 27-6, 75-12, 144-33, and 144-74 state the degree rule j would cause seriet.s morale problems. Comments 28-18, 47-8, 61-18, I 65-58, 65-73, 81-5, 84-13, 105-6, 124-6, 131-11, 144-27, 149-7, 158-53, 158-55, 163-18, 166-38, 176-23, 176-53, 176-55, 179-10, and 192-26 indicate the degree rule would result in (or already has resulted in) a drop in morale. Comment 65-90 States that the degree rule will severely damage thi morale and pride of present operators and that allowing degreed personnel to advance past them will result in careless attitudes. Comment 27-17 says i
45 persons with preferred degrees will be in great, demand. Com-
~
ments 43-25, 51-8, 62-7,65-123, 116-14, 120-16, 163-19, 174-18, and 175-16 note that licensed operators with numerous years of operating experience will perceive themselves as being told they are no longer qualified or wanted without a degree. Comments 14-3, 24-7, 36-3, 50-3, 65-66, 72-4, 83-3, 86-4, 88-5, 89-6, 93-3, 106-6, 109-3, 110-3, 111-3, 119-3, 125-3, 125-9, 130-15, 142-6, 145-3, 157-49, 180-19, 194-4, and 210-4 state that the immediate impact of the degree rule would be to demoralize 11-consed operators. Comment 43-26 states that demoralization would occur because licensed operators would perceive themselves as being faced with the possibility of remaining as rotating shift operators for their full career. Comment 102-15 states criticism of NRC's decision to replace signed license certifi-cates with mimeographed signatures.
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission provide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed.
- 15. Chairman Palladino believes that Table 1 in the ANPRM cor-rect.ly identifies the present control room [ plant] staff as well as that sivisioned by the ANPRM by 1991 and after 1991. 5,hould 8 other alternative control room staffing requirements be considered?
- a. Comments 7-15, 26-8, 28-12, 48-12, 56-22, 61-19,65-110, 76-26, 84-14, 128-11, 233-21, 134-20, 141-26, 151-25, 152-29, 153-27, 154-27, 156-22, 157-28, 160-21, 161-17, 164-23, 165-30, 166-39, 167-31, 171-23, 173-20, 174-19, 175-18, 176-60, 177-21, 178-13, 180-28, 186-42, 192-18, 195-24, 195-25, 196-38, 197-33, 198-26, 199-18, 202-19, 206-19, and 209-13 indicate other alternative control room staffing requirements should not be considered because the current staffing levels are adequate. Comments 34-13,
46 .
131-12, and 166-40 recommend deleting the degree require-ment. Comment 39-13 states that each plant's'pontro1 room should be evaluated separately. Comments 43-18, 51-12, 90-1, 104-13, 114-19, 138-34, 138-35, 144-91, 144-92, 144-93, 144-94, 158-58, 159-39, 177-22, and 191-54 suggest that maintaining a degreed Shift Technical Advisor should be an alternative to having degreed senior operators.
Comment 49-15 recommends that an extra reactor operator should be instituted on all shifts to handle abnomal events and surveillance testing. Comment 132-17 proposes that additional consideration should be given to the organ- l izational alignment of multi-reactor plants where one ;
senior operator may be shared between units. Comment i 159-24 proposes requiring only one degreed senior operator on a shift, a senior shift manager while all other existing senior operator positions on shift would remain non- ;
degreed. Comment 162-24 states the control room staff must ;
be adequate to handle any emergency and to deal with any r severe accidents. Comment 168-1 argues that more experi- l
- ence should be added on shift if the total years of operat-ing experience on shift are reduced in meeting the degree req 0irement. .
5 s
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission pro- ;
vide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed.
I b. Comment 20-13 states it is incorrect to say that Table 1, !
Column 4, accurately represents present control room staffing, i Resolution: The staffing levels in Column 4 gf Table 1 are i consistent with the minimum requirements of 10 CFA 50.54 [
i and the Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift. ,
e
- c. Corment 46-4 infers that the degree rule could result in a ;
reduction of one control room staff person. r l
I D
47 Resolution: This presumed reduction as indicated in Column 5 of Table I would be allowed.
- 16. TMI improvements in control room capabilities and staffing have been undertaken by the industry, i.e., STAS have been added, detailed control design reviews have been undertaken, safety parameter display systems have been installed, emergency operat-ing procedures have been improved, and the combined 50/STA posi-tion has been approved by policy. To what extent have these improvements been effective 7 Coments 34-14, 61-20, 90-2, 132-18, 133-22, 151-2, 156-23, 157-29, 158-14, 164-24, 165-31, 166-41, 167-32, 171-2, 171-24, 173-14, 176-61, 176-63, 176-64, 180-29, 185-8, 186-1, 188-21, 196-39, 198-27, 199-19, 202-20, and 203-11 indicate all the improvements mentioned in Question 16 have been effective.
Comment 56-23 says some measures have been effective, but too much emphasis has been placed on accident conditions, and that improved normal operation's equipment would aid in prevention of early mitigation. Comments 114-22 and 203-8 state that the SpDS and DCROS should be helpful although as yet unproven. Comment l
1 -
128-12saysoperatorsarebecomingmoreawareofbig-picture-p 8 type accidents and believing and analyzing control room indi-cations. Comments 129-4 and 161-18 state that training, proce-l dures, and equipment are post-THI improvements that have been l
I effective. Comment 134-21 states that the single greatest im-provement in the safety of nuclear plant operations has been the increased level of experience in plant operations groups in the seven years following the TMI accident. Comment 138-36 mentions that revised emergency procedures, SPDS, and reacto*r vessel head vent systems were worthwhile improvements. Coments 141-27, 153-28, 158-12, 158-59, 158-60, 177-23, 193-14, 195-26, 203-9, and 203-10 state that post-TMI improvements include simplifying facility operation, defining emergency procedures for immediate
48 -
response to off-normal conditions, providing information about plant conditions, and making engineering expertise op shift
~
available. Comment 146-23 indicates that detailed control room design review's (DCRDRs), symptom-based 20Ps, and enhanced con-trol room capability have solved many problems apparent at TMI.
Comment 152-30 states that the safety parameter display system (SPOS) and emergency operating procedures (EOPs) have been en-gineered and human factored such that accidents beyond design basis can be handled effectively. Coment 7-27 says that SPOS and function-based E0Ps when designed or written by suitably ,
qualified operators have proven useful and effective. Comments 154-30, 172-5, and 160-23 indicate that the SPOS, E0Ps, and simulator training have increased the overall diagnostic and emergency capabilities of the operating crews. Comment 165-65,
- based on a utility survey of operators, conveys the following regarding the effectiveness of the reactor vessel level instru-mentation system: considerably (11), marginal (4), none (6),
decreased (4), and no opinion (24). Comment 165-66, based on a utility survey of operators, conveys the following regarding the effectiveness of increased emphasis on training: considerably (35), marginal (11),none(1), decreased (1),andnoopinion (1). Corment 165-67, based on a utility survey of operators, 1 conveys the following regarding the effectiveness of plant-
[
s specific simulators: considerably (45), marginal (3), and noopinion(1). Coments 166-43 and 176-65 state the wider use of plant-specific simulators has been effective. Coment 175-19 '
indicates that some of the control room and staffing TMI im-provements have been effective. Coment 185-7 notes the effec-tiveness of improvements and accreditation of operator training.
I Coments 192-19 and 210-8 indicate the two most significant improvements have been the Shift Technical Advisor *($TA) and E0Ps. Coment 196-46 notes the significant improvements in man-eachine interface. Comments 197-35 and 197-36 indicate that 4
the most effective improvements since TMI have been E0Ps, DCRORs, and increased training in transient accident analysis and
49 mitigating core damage. Cs wents 159-10 and 203-7 en,umerate in-dustry actions to enhance operator response to off-n6rmal con-ditions: hardware modifications, increases in shift staffing, improvements in training and qualification programs, emphasis on human factors considerations, procedural upgrades, and emer- l gency response organizations. Comment 7-29 notes wide varia-tions in improvement to safety following the TMI accident because of the reluctance of some utilities to integrate multidiscipli-nary knowledge with detailed plant-specific knowledge to meet new requirements. Comment 43-29 states one beneficial TMI im-provement has been manual resetting of containment isolation valves. Coment 47-9 indicates that improvements mentioned in Question 16 have not been effective. Comments 73-9 and 162-25 state another TMI would be needed to answer Question 16. Com-ment 76-27 notes that STAS and the SPD5s are ineffective. Com-i
- ment 130-16 says INPO and the NRC should collect and analyze data on the efficacy of the changes mentioned in Question 16.
Coment 134-22 states that the primary benefit of' many of the
! changes mentioned in Question 16 have been political. Comment 134-24 recomends that the Commission address the adverse safety impact os extensive surveillance testing requirements as a means of improving plant safety. Comments 138-37 and 138-38 state
[
j
! that most of the NUREG-0737 items did not address the cause of 1 the TMI accident, namely, a design that is subject to both hy-draulic and thermal transients for high probability events.
' Coment 166-65 says the STA, DCRDR, and E0Ps have been less sig-l nificant improvements. Comments 186-43 and 209-14 state that j
the data base is insufficient to render a final opinion on Ques-tion 16. Comment 7-28 states that SPD5s designed by contractors sit unused and E0Ps written by outsiders are reviewed as burden-some requirements. Coments 53-15, 56-2, 56-3, 56-4, 57-12, 58-3, 59-9, 75-6, 81-4, 94-1, 94-2, 95-4, 101-6, 114-20, 117-5, 129-3, 136-7, 144-46, 144-95, 147-6, 150-10, 150-11, 150-78, 152-31, 154-28, 159-4, 159-25, 160-22, 163-21, 167-9, 1(7-10, 170-14, 171-28, 172-6, 174-20, 176-4, 176-5, 176-111, 178-14, i I
50 -
179-1, 179-11, 184-6, 186-15, 196-3, 204-2, and 2047 4 point out the STA position has been effective. Comment 7-16 yate's that
~
the STAS assigned to shifts and given opportunities to license and' advance are respected by operators and contribute to safe and efficient plant operation. Comment 146-29 believes that adequate engineering and assessment expertise is possessed by its operating staff to deal effectively with plant transients or other abnormal conditions. Comment 165-63, based on a utility survey of operators, conveys the following regarding the effec- l tiveness of the STA position: considerably (25), marginal (14),
none (7), and no opinicn (3). Comment 165-64, based on a l utility survey of operators, conveys the following regarding the effectiveness of the combined 50/STA: considerably (12), mar-ginal (2), none (8), decreased (11), and no opinion (16). Com-ment 26-21 states the STA can provide useful advice to the shift supervisor in accident assessment and procedures compliance, but due to their limited operational experience such advice must be weighed before any action can be taken. Coment'7-30 says that those STAS assigned to duty days and not involved with the operating crew are simply a drain on engineering department manpower and morale. Comment 38-9 states that the STA is of i little help because the individual is so specialized. Comment, f
26-9 indicates that the STAS performance can be best be deter I s
mined by looking at their performance in past accident situa-tions. Comment 39-14 states the STA provides someone to do the phone notification for control room personnel. Comments 43-19, 44-1, 48-13, 49-16,65-111, 84-17, 87-3, 121-8, 142-8, and 191-55 state that the STA position is not effective. Coments l
46-10, 46-11, 46-12, 46-13, and 46-14 note that the elimination of the separate STA function, as allowed in the current NRC Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift, 12 only valid if the STA function can be shown to be independent during an accident. Comments 100-2, 114-23, 144-98, 157-9, and 185-5 believe the combined 50/STA is not a* good idea. Comment 138-39
I 51 l
1 indicates that the ANPRM ignored all of the TMI modifications.
Comments 165-32,166-42,and164-25statethattheINPRMimplies that "free thinkers" are what is needed in control rooms to take the appropriate immediate actions in the event of an incident.
Comments 71-18, 84-15, 158-11, 159-27, 171-26, and 176-48 state that the SPDS has been (or will be) effective. Comment 26-20 suggests that the operations staff be queried on this question.
Comments 26-23, 48-15, 49-22, and 104-14 state that the SPDS has not been effective. Comment 165-62, based on a utility survey of operators, conveys the following regarding the effectiveness
^
of the SPDS: considerably (28), marginal (90),none(4),andno opinion (8). Comment 166-64 predicts that the SPOS will result in significant improvements in operations. Comments 2-7, 21-11, 49-23, 53-12, 53-14, 56-6, 59-2, 59-3, 59-4, 59-5, 59-6, 59-7, 65-64,65-120, 95-2, 95-3, 101-5, 114-21, 114-24, 116-6, 131-13, 134-23, 144-97, 150-17, 151-26, 154-29, 157-17, 159-26, 160-6, i 160-16, 171-4, 171-25, 176-62, 185-4, 185-6, and 197-34 state E0Ps have been effective. Comment 48-16 states E0Ps have not been effective. Comment 165-143, based on a utility survey of operators, convey the following regarding the effectiveness of the E0 Psi considerably (25), marginal (8), none (5), decreased (4), and no opinion (7). Comments 43-30,84-16,104-15,171-2K; and 172-4 indicate the DCRDR has been (or is expected to be) f 8
effective. Comment 26-19 suggests that the question in this area be answered by a study. Comments 26-22, 48-14, 49-21, and 144-96 indicate the DCROR has not been effective.
Resolution: The comments have been noted.
i
- 17. Requiring 50s in the control room to have a technioel college degree will have an impact on R0s and auxiliary operators (A0s),
especially with regard to a career path for these personnel.
To what extent will the 50 requirement drive out capable opera-tors, and result in high personnel turnover and instability in the workforce?
I
,---w--s m
52 Comments 2-8,10-4,12-2,12-4,12-5,17-7,18-2,22,-5,24-6, 26-14, 36-4, 43-5, 43-20, 45-4, 49-17, 55-4, 59-13, 19-19, 64-5, 65-25, 65-42, 65-50, 84-18, 89-7, 103-5, 106-7, 114-25, 116-15, 124-4, 132-19, 138-40, 146-6, 151-5, 152-10, 152-32, 154-3, 154-31, 156-3, 156-24, 158-7, 159-29, 161-3, 161-19, 163-22, 165-14, 167-5, 171-29, 174-22, 174-23, 175-20, 176-11, 176-105, 177-24, 180-30, 184-11, 188-22, 191-56, 195-27, and 197-39 posit that the contemplated rule will drive ambitious operators into other fields because they will consider their career paths are cut off. Comments 10-3, 13-24, 15-2, 17-11, 32-2, 32-4, 32-7, 35-1, 35-3, 38-10, 44-3, 52-5, 55-5, 59-8,65-101, 65-118, 73-10, 78-7, 81-3, 88-7, 95-8, 102-2, 103-6, 135-7, 138-9, 141-29, 146-9, 146-24, 148-5, 149-2, 150-29, 150-30, 150-46, 151-27, 153-30,
) 157-12, 158-62, 159-3, 165-11, 165-12, 165-52, 167-6, 170-12,
. 174-9, 174-10, 176-12, 176-18, 176-19, 176-20, 176-66, 176-67,
! 177-25, 192-27, and 199-20 note that degreed engineers envision i a career of shift work, required overtime, and perpetual requali-fication examinations will result in individuals soliciting career movements to positions outside the control room staff.
Comments 13-8, 21-12, 27-7, 30-4, 34-2, 34-15, 37-8, 39-12, j
40-7, 46-8, 47-10, 55-3,.56-5, 56-24, 59-12, 59-18, 62-8, 65-59,
. 63-68,65-74,73-13,76-28,77-10,81-9,83-4,88-6,89-8,90-5, I
i s 92-4, 102-5, 104-16, 116-7, 128-10, 120-17, 126-9, 128-13, 130-17, 131-14, 133-7, 133-23, 134-25, 135-6, 136-6, 142-5,
- 144-29, 144-29, 144-35, 144-100, 150-2, 150-50, 152-2, 158-3, 158-31, 158-41, 159-28, 160-4, 160-24, 164-26, 165-33, 166-12,
{
- 166-44, 166-62, 167-7, 167-33, 171-8, 173-15, 176-68, 176-100,
! 180-4, 186-5, 186-11, 186-12, 186-29, 186-44, 192-20, 196-40, 197-37, 197-38, 198-4, 198-28, 206-21, and 209-15 maintain that l
the contemplated rule would drive out capable operators result-ing in both high personnel turnover and instability in the work-
)
force and in less overall experience on shift with negative implications for plant safety. Comment 7-17 states that addi-tional attrition resulting from the contemplated degree l
4
53 requirement will not be significant or unmanageable., Comment 65-112 indicates excessive turnover will not occur but bad at-titudes are likely because highly trained nuclear operators cannot approach their salaries in other jobs. Comment 45-3 says the contemplated requirement would eliminate many non-licensed and reactor operator licensed operators from obtaining an 50 license, resulting in a loss of practical experience among $0s on shift. Comment 57-17, 144-11, 157-30, 158-6, 158-40, and 162-26 state the contemplated degree requirement will deter many able persons from entering the ranks of opera-tions. Comment 165-145 reports the results of a survey of li-censed operators and Shift Technical Advisors conducted by KMC, a utility consulting firm: 13 responded "yes" and 6 responded "no" concerning whether the respondent would continue shift work after obtaining a degree. Comment 165-61 indicates how long 13 respondents anticipated they would remain on' shift after obtaing a degree: one year (2), two years (1), longer than two years (4), and career (6). Comment 165-54 reports that' 42 of 49 re-spondents believe the contemplated degree requirement will result in high turnover in the senior operator position.
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission provide t a
t guidance on which degree option should be deve' loped.
- 18. Presently one degreed engineer is required to be within 10 minutes of the control room or a member of the control room staff, the STA or the combined 50/STA, respectively. While requiring a second control room operator to have a technical degree nay enhance operator organizational status, professional-1sm and esprit de corps, will a second degreed engineer signifi-cantly improve operator performance beyond the STA or combined 50/STA improvements? Will these improvements become apparent in the short term or the long term?
1 54 ,
. l Comments 2-9, 13-9, 20-14, 21-13, 26-11, 27-8, 28-14, 34-16, I
37-9, 38-11, 39-15, 43-21, 47-11, 48-17, 49-18, 51-1, 53-16, 56-25, 57-13, 57-19, 61-21, 62-9,65-113, 71-19, 73;11, 76-29, 77-11, 84-19, 90-4, 98-4, 104-17, 114-26, 128-14, 130-18, 130-19, 131-15, 132-20, 133-24, 134-26, 138-42, 138-43, 138-44, :
138-45, 141-30, 141-31, 141-32, 141-33, 144-101, 144-103, 145-4, 146-25, 151-28, 152-33, 153-31, 154-32, 154-33, 154-34, 156-25, i 157-31, 157-50, 158-63: 158-64, 159-30, 159-31, 160-25, 161-20, i
~
162-27, 163-23, 164-27, 164-28, 164-29, 165-35, 165-36, 165-37, !
166-45, 166-46, 166-47, 167-34, 170-15, 171-30, 173-16, 174-24, h 174-25, 174-26, 175-21, 176-69, 177-26, 184-26, 186-45, 188-23, f 191-57, 192-21, 195 28, 196-41, 196-42, 197-40, 197-41, 198 29, 199-21, 202-22, 206-22, and 209-16 state that the contemplated I
degree rule will not enhance either one or more of the follow-ing: professionalism, esprit de corps, operator performance, operator organizational status, or plant safety. Comment 7-18 says that the contemplated degree rule will significantly in- [
prove the probablity that plant operators will take the correct f action when confronted with situations not covered by training i or procedures since there will be no need for an STA to explain what is going on to the shift supervisor before a: tion is taken.
Comments' 180-31 and 180-32 point out that having degreed, as ,
," well as nen-degreed operators enhances operations. f Resolution: The staff ruonnends that the Commission provide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed, i
- 19. What is the industry's view about availability of new college graduates who can be trained in nuclear power plant operation or l about the feasibility of having present plant operators pursue
! and obtain a technical college degree?
I I Comments 2 10, 56-26, 85-2, 130-20, 134-27, 150-39, 162-28, ,
i 176-21, 176-22, 180 33, 192-22, 196-44, and 198 6 state it would f
! l i i
~
55 be extremely difficult to attract and retain new cpilege gradu-ates in the operating group. Comment 167-35 reports' a decline in college graduates with an interest in nuclear power operation from 1984 to 1985. Comments 34-17, 35-2, 35-5, 43-31, 61-22, 71-20, 77-6, 90-5, 90-6, 105-12, 120-18, 141-6, 141-34, 144-71, 144-104, 146-30, 150-22, 150-33, 150-34, 150-35, 150-36, 150 37, 150-38, 150-40, 150-51, 151-29, 152-4, 152-5, 152-34, 156-27, 157 32, 158-65, 159-32, 160-27, 161-21, 163-24, 164-30, 165-38, 165-39, 166-3, 166-4, 167-34, 171-31, 175-22, 176-70, 177-27, '
186-9, 186-46, 191-6, 195-5, 195-6, 195-29, 196-7, 197-42, 202-23, and 209-17 note insufficient n abers of new college graduates are available who can be trained in nuclear operations and who are willing to work rotating shift schedules. Coment 47-12 questions the ability of the industry to pick people who can do the job. Assuming shift schedule improvements, a res-sonable increase in salary levels, and the recent decline in engineering positions industry-wide, Coments 7-19,65-114, 154-35, 156-26, 158-16, 158-17, 165-34, 188-24, l'88-27, 198-30, and 206-23 indicate sufficient new graduates would be available to fill openings for the senior operator position. Coments 10-5, 13-16, 20-15, 43-22, 49-19, 56-28, 57-14, 61-27, 65-62,65-122, 97-2, 102-4, 127-5, 132-23, 133-25, 134-28, 141-35, f
8 144-18, 144-22, 144-32, 144-37, 144-61, 144-105, 145-7, 150-21, 150-23, 150-24, 150-25, 150-26, 150-27, 150-44, 150-48, 150-56, 150-58, 152-6, 152-7, 152-35, 152-36, 152-37, 154-36, 162-29, 167-36, 171-32, 174-21, 175-23, 174-27, 175-23, 177-3, 177-28, 180-34, 186-48, 188-26, 197-43, 198-35, 202-24, 206-27, and 209-18 indicate that most shift operations staff would find it infeasible to obtain a technical degree because of one or more of the following reasor.s: personal schedule, rotat*ing shift l work, requalification training, lack of personnel to replace them on shift, r.s desire to obtain a degree, or colleges t.ot in proximity of plant. Coment 21-14 states that utilities would not want to spend the time or money to allow operators to obtain degrees on company time. Coments 28-15, 37-10, 68-8, 104-18,
56 .
114-27, 120-19, 156-28, 158-18, 160-26, 166-48, 166,49, 173-21, 176-71,177-29,191-58,196-9,and199-22conveythat;itwould be more appropriate to educate an operator to become an engi-neer rather than train an engineer to become an operator. Cem-ments 150-64, 150-65, 150-66, and 150-67 state that it is not feasible to produce all degreed senior operators by training reactor operators. Comment 62-10 states that college attendance by operators should be voluntary. Coment 38-12 notes that former navy operators have more experience and better training than college graduates. Coments 73-12, 76-30, and 128-15 characterize the industry view in this area as "negative," "not needed," and "time consuming and costly," respectively. Com-ments 59-10, 71-2, 79-6, 92-2, 95-7, 101-3, 132-21, 140-7, 150-68, 150-69, 150-70, 150-71, 150-72, 150-73, 150-74, and 176-72 state that utilities would find it economically feasible to hire degreed 50 candidates and train them for the 50 examina-
. tion merely to satisfy the contemplated degree req 91rement and to meet the proposed January 1, 1991 deadline. Coment 138-46 believes the ANPRM does not support the necessity for a degree requirement for senior operators. Coment 165-59 reports on a utility survey of licensed operators and shift technical advisors
- which revealed the following: the majority of respondents re- $
s sponded that recent college graduates should receive the full senior operator training program and that recent graduates should have prior experience as a reactor operator. Coments 59-15, 59-16, 59-17, and 196-43 point cut that new degreed senior opera-tors would lack expertise in the areas of leadership and super-vision. Comment 144-40 hypothesizes, based on the Interference Theory, that there is a negative coorelation between removing operators from shif t to obtain degrees and how much *information operators remember of material learned to receive a license.
Coment 144-41 hypothesizes, based on the' Decay Theory, that there is a negative correlation between the length of time an
57 operator is away from his/her duties and retention of informa-M on operators should know to properly perfors the'ir duties.
Resolution: As noted in the ANPRM, a degree rule would necessi- l tate completten of a regulatory analysis, including consideration of the availability of rew college graduates and the feasibility of current reactor operators obtaining degrees.
- 20. Should there be a numerical limit on the total number of "grandfathered" S0s at any particular plant?
Coments 20-16, 21-15, 28-16, 34-18, 37-11, 38 d , 39-16, 43-23, 47-13, 48-18, 55 14, 56-27, 57-15, 61-23, 62-12. 05-51, 65-75,65-115, 68-9, 76-31, 64-20, 104-19, 114-28, 118-11, 120-20, i 128-16, 130-21, 131-16, 132-22, 141-36, 146-26, 151-30, 152-38, 154-37, 156-29, 157-33, 158-66, 159-33, 160-28, 161-22, 163-25, 164-31, 165-40, 166-50, 166-51, 167-37, 171-34, 173-22, 175-24, 176-73, 177-30, 178-15, 180-35, 184-28, 186 47, 188-25, 191-60, i
192-23, 196-45, 197-44, 198-31, 199-23, 202-25, 206-24, and
- 209-19 favor no limit on the ausber cf "grandfathered" senior operator,s at a plant. Comment 7-20 favors no limit, but recom-i . sends that the shift supervisor be degreed after the implement,a- i j r tion date of the contemplated requirement. Asstning a legitim$te i
safety concern varrants the contemplated degree requirement, l Cosmnts 13-10 and 144-106 are opposed to "grandf athering."
Cosswnts 13-20 and 133-26 state that the very idea of "grand-l l fathering" suggests there is no problem with the current experi-l ence and qualifications of senior operators. Comments 49-20, 65-26, and 162-30 state there is no need to "grandfather" be-l l cause the centemplated degree requirement is unfeasible and unacceptable. Comment 13-21 states that "grandf(thering" is designed to make the conte'splated degree requirement more palat-able. Assuming a limit is placed on the number of "grandfathereci" senior operators, Comment 27-9 expresses concern about what criteria will be employed. Comment 53-17 states that limiting
58 ,
l the number of "grandfathered" senior ope ntors would force some j non-degreed individuals from any positions directly, dealing with plant operations. Comment 53-18 states that utilitfes are not likely to create new positions of a bargaining-unit type to deal with displaced "non-granfathered" senior operators.. Comment 74-3 states that degreed senior operators would receive advance- l ment opportunities rather than "grandfathered" senior opera- l l tors. Connent 74 4 says "grandfathering" senior operators would
- mean utilities would not provide opportunities for such indi- ,
viduals to obtain degrees. Comments 134-29 and 138-47 say all l senior operators should be treated equally, thus, no "grand-fcthering," except to ensure the Shift Technical Advisor post- i tion is filled on each shift. Assuming a realistic deadline for '
the contemplated degree requirement, Comment 158-75 favors reconsideration of "grandfathering." Comment 144-26 points out j that "grandfathered" shift supervisors may ultimately lose their positions once degreed senior operators are available. Comnent 146-27 requests clarification concerning whether "grandfathered" j senior operators would be allowed to renew their licenses at the
) and of each two year 9 cense renewal period on an indefinite I
- basis. Comment 191-59 notes that plants with a deferred status would be' at a disadvantage regarding "grandfathered" senior , [
[ operators. i 1
) Resolut?on: If the Commission elects to proceed with rulemaking, i the staff recommends that there be no numerical limit on the number o/ "grandfathered" senior operators at any particular l t
plant. I i
! B. Prior Panels and Cosmittees .
- 1. Comments 3-1, 3-2, 3-3,16-1, 24-2, 46-3, 98 5, and 144*8 indicate that the Commission should follow the reconnendation l of the Peer Advisoty Panel. (
\
59 Resolutin3: The Comission notes that the report of the. Peer Advisory Panel of 1982 on operator qualifications recomended against a degree requirement for senior operators.
- 2. Comment 12-7 endorses the concerns that the Nuclear Safety Oversight Committee had in 1981.
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Comission approve providing guidance on which degree rule option should be developed and separating the training and education issues di 3 sed in the ANPM.
C. Suggesteu Alternatives to ANPM
- 1. Comments 73-14 and 73-19 suggest that no change in current
- requirements for senior operaters should be considered and serve as a benchmark for other proposals. Comments 73-15 and l 197-53 suggest hiring engineering or physical science graduates i and training them as senior operators. Cossents 73-16 and 197-6 suggest sending reactor operators and senior operators to schal i
to obtain degrees. Comments 79-4 and 179-2 suggest voluntary
. compliance regarding degreed senior operators rather than the ;
- e . contemplated degree rule. I Resolution
- The staff recossends that the Coenission provide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed.
- 2. Comment 73-18suggestsajointnuclearpowerplantandlocal state college degree program. Comment 73-21 suggests that a local state college integrate a degree program into the operator training program of a nuclear power plant. Comment 73-17 sugg-ests "buying" a degree program. Comments 172-7 and 172-10 favor providing college technical educa*.1on at nuclear plants.
60 Resolution: The staff recomends that the Coenission provide guidanceonwhichdegreeruleoptionshouldbedeveloped.
1
- 3. Coments 91-7, 207-1, and 207-4 suggest requiring senior oper- l ators to obtain an associate degree.
2 Resolution: The coments have been noted.
- 4. Comment 107-7 suggests that a minimum of 80 percent of the senior operators at any individual plant be degreed, and that up to 20 percent of the senior operator staff be allowed to be non-degreed provided they demonstrate these two attributes: ;
- sound technical knowledge of operating events and ability to reason quickly and logically in order to initiate a safe course of action in emergency situations.
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission provide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed.
- 5. Coseent 159-5 suggests an alternative method be considered .
1 where a shift sanagement position is created that would oversee operational activities associated with all units on a site. .
l , Comment 176 81 raises concern about whether the Senior Manager i i rule will be reconsidered by the Commission.
Resolution: .The staff reconsends that the Cosmission provide ;
guidance on which degree rule option should be developed. (
l
- 6. Comments 166-2 and 204-8 suggest encouraging utilities to ii-I conse plant support personnel (e.g., systems engineers, shift I technical advisors and other technical and training specialists) in order to improve the nuclear plant operation expertist and l
familiarity of utility management.
l t
1 i - - - _ _
61 Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission provide guidance on which degree rule option should be deleloped.
- 7. Comment 174-11 suggests modifying the contemplated A gree rule (a) to require INPO accreditation of orsite and offsite degree programs which are tailored to meet the requirements of the de-gree rule, and (b) to allow the creation of a Nuclear Academy i which would be administered by INPO and nationally accredited.
Comments 193-2, 193-4, 193-5, and 193-6 opt for an alternative to the contemplated degree rule: a training program administered by the utility, which includes an appropriate afx of engineering and technical courses, taught by local institutions, and acci-dent analysis courses, taught by the utility or by the Nuclear Steam Supply Systes designer.
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission provide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed.
- 8. Comment 202-5 proposes obtaining degrees for plant operators or obtaining Itcenses for plant engineers.
Resolutt'on: The staff recommends that the Consission provide ,
, guidance on which degree rule option should be developsd. I D. Commenters provided views on Commissioner Asselstine's alternative method for upgrading the engineering knowledje and understanding of reacter theory needed by licensed senior operators through these
- three step
- (Step 1) establishing a working group to define the problea, (Step 2) establishing a training curriculus to address the probles, and (Step 3) developing new licensing and requalification !
examinations to assess any change in the problem area. ;
- 1. Coseent 101-1 agrees with Coccissioner Asselstine's statement that some operators are having difficulty in retaining the level !
of knowledge of engineering and reactor theory needed to deal i
-, ,. - - - . . _ - _ _ - . - - - - . . _ , - --- - ,-,,-- -., ~ , , . - ,
i 62 .
I
- effectively with design-basis events. Comment 158-74 shares the Commissioner's concern that operators have adequate ~, knowledge and understanding to operate a power plant. Comments 22-6 and l 55-15 point out that operators, as well as engineers, fail to !
retain engineering and reactor theories because of insufficient i on going refresher traiaing and the passage of time. Cem- l ments 133-31, 157-39, 165-48, 166-58, and 191-14 respond to the l
' Commissioner's statement by stating that the few isolated cases l
) of poor requalification results by operators are the result of ;
ill-conceived examinations and a disconnect between training and l examination questions, rather than inferior operator performance.
i Comments 87-6 and 171-9 disagree with Commissioner Asselstine's statement with respect to engineering knowledge and reactor j theory being the items most needing improvement in operator j j training. Comment 197-52 suggests that the NRC and the industry l
work closely together to define essential training and examina- (
f tion processes and fordulate a schedule of implementation based :
on needed changes. Cossents 205-3 and 205-4 state that the goal ;
of better qualified operators would be better achieved by requir- l ing that licensed personnel have competency in those engineering i j disciplinesandsubjectsthatc'ontributetotheirproficiencyand j
- by testing to ensure that licensed operators meet requirements. [
l t
( s t
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission provide l j guidance on which degree rule option should be developed.
l l 2. Comments 83-11, 116-17, 122-9, 122-10, 143-5, 154-8, 159 37, l 168-5, 176-42, 176-79, and 209-21 fully endorse the Commiss- !
ioner's proposal. Ce m nt 157-38 endorses the Commissiiner's ;
proposal, with one exception: there is no reason to assume its l
- added engineering expertise on shift will ruult in safer oper- l J
ation of tauclear power plants. Comment 180-38 endorses the l l
Commissioner's proposal; providing the working group base its [
findings on the industry senior operator job and task analys's, !
l I l actual industry events, and responsible scientific studies like i;
i 63 IDCOR; and assuming the National Nuclear Ac';reotting 8.oard accredits training. Comment 193-1 supports the Comissioner's position.
Resolution: The staff recomends that the Comission provide guidance on which Jegree rule option should be developed.
3.
Comnents 16-5, 26-17, 35-6, 35-8, 133-32, 150-53, 175-4, and 197-54 endorse Step 1 of Commissioner Asselstine's proposal.
Comment 26-18, 197-50, and 197-51 endorse Step 2 of the
, Coenissioner's proposal. Coseent 133-33 indicater Step 2 is now in place. Coenent 76-38, 157-40, 165-47, 166-57, and 176-80 indicate tisat Steps 1 and 2 are already in place in utility training programs. Coenent 157-41 points out that the Coenissioner's proposal to rigidly define knowledge require-
' ments and examination content would be a disservice to public safety. Comments 46-9 and 138 17 endorse Steps 1 and 2 of the Coenissioner's proposal. Comment 193-12 endorses Steps 1 and 2 of the Commissioner's proposal, except that a focused training program would be accredited by INPO through the National Academy of Nuclear Training. Comments 55-17, 76-39, and 133-34 endorse Step 3 of the Cossaissioner's proposal. Cossent 193 13 endorse,s Step 3 of the Commissioner's proposal, except that current I <
8 licensed senior operators would successfully complete an INPO-accredited program to obtain or retain a senior operator license rather than be tested at the proposed higher levels of knowledge.
l Resolution: The staff recommends thet the Commission provide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed.
l
- 4. Comments 141-40, 150-13, 150-14, 150-31, 158-71, 158-72, 179-8, 191-5, and 197-49 agree with Cosnissioner Asselstine's scate-sent that a baccalaureate degree in engineering may not provide the best means for assuring that senior operators have the knwledge needed to carry out thir responsibilities. Coments
64 I 141-41and158-73expressasimilarconcernasexpqessedby l Commissioner Asselstine that the contemplated degree req'uirement is likely to result in the loss of some experienced'and skilled ,
licensed operators. Coment 141-42 shares Commissioner Assel-stine's concern that operators have adequate knowledge and understanding to operate a power plant and points out that current training provides that knowledge. Cospents 76-36 and 150-12 agree with the Commissioner's conclusion that the con- ,
templated degree rule should not be implemented. !
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission provide I
- . guidance on which degree rule option should be developed. ;
i E. Commissioner Roberts expressed concerns regarding the ANPRM and
. requested specific coseents on questions concerning (1) the relation- '
ship between a degree requirement and operator performance, (2) whether the contemplated degree rule would enhance public health and safety, and (3) what negative safety implications may' result from j the contemplated degree rule. l
- 1. Comments 2-14, 5 1, 6-1, 6-5, 6-8i, 9-1, 11-3, 13-12, 13-14,
- 14 1, 1553, 15-5, 16-10, 17-1, 19-1, 19-5, 21-2, 24-1, 24-4, 25-6,26-12,27-12,29-2,30-1,30-7,309,36-1,40-2,40-5,[
l 41-2, 41-4, 43-2, 43-4, 45-1, 46-2, 48-19, 48-20, 48-21, 52-3, 53-8, 53-10, 53 11, 54-5, 55-2, 55-8, 55-16, 58-2, 59-1, 60-5, ;
i 60-6, 60-7, 61-2, 61-3, 63-4, 64-8, 65-3, 65-4, 65-8, 65-12, 65-14, 65-15, 65-17, 65-32, 65-38, 65-53, 65-71, 65-76, 65-79. !
I 65-96,65-124, 70-4, 71-13, 71-31, 72-2, 72-31, 75-4, 75-10, i 76-2, 76-4, 76-5, 76-6, 76-7, 76-10, 76 11, 76-33, 80-5, 80 8, 80-9, 80-12, 82-3, 82-5, 85-1, 85-0, 85-9, 86-2, 86-3, 87-1, ,
- 87-5, 92-6, 95-1, 96-8, 98-2, 99-2, 101-2, 103-2, 105-9, 107-1,
! 107-5,112 4,112-5,113-5,113-7,113-8,116-8,121-6,124-B, j 126-1, 132-1, 132-2, 133-29, 134-4, 134-6, 135-4, 137-3, 138-5, ,
i 138-14, 138-15, 140-3, 140-11, 141-37, 142-3, 142-9, 144-2, ,
144-4, 144-5, 144-7, 144-9, 144-10, 144-17, 144-25, 144-30, 1
65 144-34, 144-36, 144-48, 144-49, 144-50, 144-88, 145-1, 145-2, 146-3, 146-4, 147-2, 151-3, 152-8, 152-12, 157-15,'157-35, 157-42,157-44,156-15,158-35, N-36,158-68,160-2,161-4, 162-4, 162-6, 162-11, 165-5, 165-7, 165-8, 165-9, 165-41, 165-50, 166-52, 167-2, 168-4, 171-5, 174-4, 175-1, 175-2, 176-2, 176-16, 176-17, 176-54, 176-74, 176-104, 176-109, 179-3, 180-2, 184-9, 186-2, 188-2, 191-1, 191-13, 191-15, 191-23, 191-24, 191-32, 192-28, 193-3, 194-2, 194-5, 197-45, 198-3, 198-33, 202-3, 2')5-2, 206-3, 206-26, 208-1, and 203-20 state there is no significant relationship between a baccalaureate degree require-ment for senior operators and their job performance. Comnent 154-1 indicates that the contemplated degree rule will increase engineering expertise on shift eut would not ancrease accident management expertise. Comment 178-3 states the contemplated rule would faprove the ability of a single individual with both operations and engineering knowledge to reach correct decisions.
Comment 178-4 indicates that the contemplated degree requirement would improve the senior operator's problem-solving ability especially during severe accidents. Comment 165-139 reports that foJr of 49 respondents believe the contemplated degree requirement will improve operations.
[ Resolution: As noted in the ANPRM, a degree rule would f necessitate complet.wo of a regulatory analysis, includ'ng appropriate justification fo? such a rule,
- a. Cossents 64-3, 134-30, 157-34, 158-67, and 179-7 fully endorse the concerns expressed by the ConnisJioner with respect to the contemplated rule negatively affecting the level ef experience and expertise of senior op,erators.
Resolution: As noted in the ANPRM, a degree rule would necessitate completion of a regulatory analysis, including the consequences of such a rule.
66
- b. Comments 2-12, 5-2, 6-2, 12-1, 12-9, 13-13, 14-5, 14-6, 15-4,15>6,17-4,17-10,19-3,22-4,23-2,25-f,32-6, 39-8, 49-10, 51-5, 51-9, 52-2, 53-5, 53-7, 57-16, 57-18, 61-4, 61-6, 64-2, 65-5, 65-16, 65-19, 65-28, 65-30, 65-34, 65-36, 65-60, 65-63, 65 65, 65-80,65-117, 65-119, 71-7, 75-5, 75-7, 75-8, 75-9, 75-11, 77 4,, 78-5, 79-1, 79-8, 80-10, 80-13, 81-1, 81-6, 81-7, 81-8, 85-8, 87-4, 92-7, 96-2, 96-6, 96-7, 99-4, 100-3, 100-7, 102-6, 105-5, 113-4, 113-6, 115-3, 116-12, 116-4, 116-5, 116-10, 117-4, 121-5, 122-6, 123-2, 123-5, 123-6, 124-5, 124-7, 124-9, 126-4, 126-5, 127-2, 129-2, 133-2, 133 5, 133-8, 135-2, 135-9, 138-4, 138-10, 138-12, 140-5, 140-6, 140-10, 142-2, 144-14, 144-15, 144-16, 144-42, 144-43, 144-44, 144-45, 144-72, i 144-102, 147-8, 148-3, 148-4, 148-8, 150-32, 150-45, 154-2, 157-43, 159-34, 162-2, 162-3, 162-7, 162-8, 162-9, 162-10, 165-51, L9-3,169-4,169-6,170-7,171-7,175-3,176-8, 176-78, 176-96, 176-97, 176-98, 176-103, 176-112, 176-113, 177-1, 177-31, 179-4, 179-5, 179-6,'179-9, 184-13, 185-2, 186-6, 188-3, 189-1, 196-5, 196-6, 198-5, 210-3, and 210-6 state that experience is more important than a baccalaureate degree requirement in the job performance of senior ope'rators. ,
l ,
i I Resolution: As noted in the ANPRM, a degree eule would necessitate a regulatory analysis, including the impact of such a rule on the aggregate experience level on shift.
- c. Comment 157-47 reports that respondents to a Professional Reactor Operators Society's survey indicated a degree re-quirement is related to job performance as follows: not at all (65 percent), somewhat (28 percent), essential (1 per-cent), and other (6 percent). Comments 165-137 and 165-138 report that respondents to a survey conducted by KMC indi-cated: 20 of 42 responde~' . believe a degree requirement will result in a loss of experience in the senior operator
67 position and 23 of 42 respondents anticipate losing valu-able experienced personnel. '.
Resolution: As noted in the ANPRM, a degree rule would necessitate a regulatory analysis, including the impact of such a rule on the aggregate experience level on shift,
- d. Cosnents 46-15, 46-16, 46-17, 107-4, 191-3, 191-17, and 196-8 state that a degreed individual is a better problem solver, while the non degreed individual is quicker in re-sponding to action-reaction scenarios. Coseents 46-18, '
46-19, 143-3, 146-10, 148-16, 150-79, 156-4, 191-18, and 204-5 state that a team approach involving individuals with problem-solving capabilities (e.g., engineering knowledge) and individuals with fast action-reaction responses (e.g.,
experience) increases operational effectiveness and safety for nuclear plant operations. Comment 307-2 stetes there is a greater chance of obtaining good supervising operators among engineering perscanel rather than non-degreed personnel.
Relolution: The staff recommends that the Commission prg-s vide guidance on which degree rule option should be I developed.
- 2. Comments 11 2, 16-6, 16-12, 16-13, 22-1, 25-1, 26-13, 29-1, 30-8, 32-8. 35-15, 36-2, 40-6, 42-5, 43-24, 44-5, 45-5, 50-5, 50-7, 65-88, 65-89, 67-3, 75-1, 76-3, 83-7, 83-8, 83-9, 84-21, 91-2, S3-5, 102-17, 109-5, 110-5, 111-5, 117-6, 119-5, 119 6, 121-3, 121-7, 121-9, 124-9, 124-10, 125-5, 125-11, 133-3,.133 4, 135-8, 149-1, 152-3, 157-2, 157-13, 159-35. 165-6, 165-42, 165-43, 165-146, 166-1, 166-5, 166-53, 166-60, 172-1, 176-75, 176-76, 176-94, 176-95, 176-108, 176-114, 179-13, 180-36, 185-3, 190-2, 197-46, and 197-47 maintain that a baccalaureate degree require-ment for U nfor operators would not enhance public health and
t 68 i safety. Comments 165-44 and 166-54 indicate that prior to the I i time required for the application of detailed scientific'and engineering knowledge to analyze core conditions, en'gineering staff would be available to assist the senior operator. Com-ments 7-21, 7-25,16-16, 65-91, and 178-2 maintain that licensed and degreed senior operators m uld enhance public health and safety. Comment 179-12 indicates that the following are efforts by NUMARC to enhance public health and safety: accredit training [
l programs, improve operator performance and professionalism, in-prove diagnostic abilities of control room operators, and estab-
> lish nuclear management experience development programs. Comment
! 183-2 conveys that the following initiatives by the NRC, INPO, I and utilities have improved public health and safety: a more
- stringent operator license examination process; increased shift and plant staff coverage, including the addition of a degreed ;
Shift Technical Advisor; development and implementation of an INP0 accreditation program for the 10 major disciplines at the ,
- plant; an increasing use of plant-referenced simulators; major improvements in the abnormal and emergency procedures used to i f
! cope with off-normal situations; and improved plant performance
! evaluations conducted by the utilities, NRC, and INPO.
Resolution: IftheCommissionelectstoproceedwithrulemakipg, a regulatory analysis would be completed, including the impact l l
of such a rule on public health and safety, i ,
- 3. Comments 2-11, 12-3, 12 6, 13-4, 14-2, 17-3, 21-16, 23 5, 24-5, f 26-15, 28-13, 29-5, 34-19, 36-5, 42-2, 46-5, 46-6, 46-7, 50-1, ;
j 50-2, 54-2, 54 4, 55-1, 57-21, 57-22, 59-14, 59-21, 61-1, 61-5, i
) 62-11, 63-2, 64-4, 65-43, 65-95, 67-2, 70-2, 71-21, 71-22, 74-9, ,
l 76-12,76-32,76-34,7635,83-1,83-2,83-12,85-f,88-8,89-9, I l 91-3, 92-3, 93-1, 93 2, 93-6, 96-4, 100-1, 101-4, 101-7, 103-4, f 109-1, 109-2, 109-6, 110-1, 110-2, 110-6, 111-1, 111-2, 111-1, t
f 111-6, 113-9, 116-1, 116-3, 116-9, 117-1, 119-1, 119-2, 124-3, 125-1, 125-2, 125-6, 125-7, 125-8, 125-12, 126-2, 126-11, 126-13, i i
69 129-1, 129-5, 130-2, 131-8, 133-28, 134 5, 136-2, 137-4, 137-5, 138-1, 138-18, 138-41, 141-2, 141-38, 141-39, 142-1, 142-4, 142 11, 143-1, 143-2, 143-4, 144-3, 144-13, 144-31, 144-73, 144-75, 146-1, 146-2, 146-5, 146-7, 146-8, 148-1, 148-2, 148-7, 150-1, 150-80, 151-1, 151-6, 152-1, 152-9, 152-13, 153-1, 153-3, 154-5, 154-16, 155-1, 156-2, 156-5, 157-3, 157-10, 157-14, 157-36, 157-37, 157-45, 158-5, 158-8, 158-19, 158-20, 158-22, 158-23, 158-69, 158-70, 159-2, 159-36, 159-38, 163-1, 163-26, 164-7, 165-4, 165-13, 165-45, 165-46, 165-147, 166-55, 166-56, 166 61, 168-2, 1681-6, 169-1, 169-5, 171-6, 176-9, 176-10, 176-25,
. 176-32, 176-39, 176-77, 176 106, 176-107, 180-3, 180-5, 180-37, 184-1, 184-7, 164 8, 184-12, 184-14, 185-1, 185-9, 186 3, 186-7, 186-10, 186-13, 186-16, 188-4, 190-1, 190-3, 190-4, 190-5, 191-2, 192-29, 193-7, 193-9, 193-16, 195-2, 195-3, 195-4, 196-2,
. 196-4, 196-13, 196-14, 197 2, 197-4, 197-48, 198-2, 198-10, 198-32, 198-36,'199-8, 202-2, 203-1, 203-2, 203-5, 203-13, 204-1, 204-3, 204-6, 204-7, 204-9, 205-1, 206-1, 206-4, 206-25, 210-1, 210-2, and 210-10 point out that imposition of a degree requirement for senior operators would result in negative safety implications primarily resluting from the anticipated loss of operator experience on shift. Coseent 157-48 reports that respondehts to a Professional Reactor Operators Society's survey indicatedthefollowingregardingacontemplateddegreerequirh-
[ ment: enhance public health and safety (3 percent), saintain l
public health and safety (24 percent), degrade public health ;
and safety (57 percent), and other responses (16 percent).
Resolution: If the Coenission elects to proceed with rulemaking, l a regulatory analysis would be completed, including the impact l of such a rule on public health and safety. ,
l F. Extend Comment Period for the MPRM
- 1. Coenents 4-1, 76-40, and 134-1 requested extension of the public comment period for the MPRM.
- - - - - - _ - - - _ , w--- -_ _ , . ,
. i 70 .
Resolution: The public coment period for the ANPRM vas extended (51 B 24715, July 8, 1986) from July 28, 1986 to S'eptember 29, 1986. All coments received before or after the extension dead-line were considered.
G. Send ANPRM to Licensed Operators
- 1. Coments 61-25, 76-14, 124-1, and 134-2 indicate that ANPRMs should be sent to licensed operators because they would be af-facted by the contemplated rulemaking.
, Resolution: As required by 10 CFR in Section 2.804(a) and NUREG-0980 in Section 552(a)(1), the ANPRM concerning a contemplated degree requirement for senior operators was published in the Federal Register (51 LR 19561, May 30, 1986).
At a cost of $0.05 per page, the public may request copies of ANPRMs by cal' ling (301) 634-3273 or by writing the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC, 20555.
H. Support for Degree Requirement
- 1. Comments, 7-31, 8-1, 107-6, 122-3, and 178-1 favor a degree
- requirement for senior operators in order to ensure that -
I 8 utility managers are experienced in plant operations, to increase public confidence in nuclear power, to enhance engineering expertise on shift, and to improve the ability of operators to deal with accidents within and beyond design-basis conditions.
Resolution: Tha staff recomends that the Cornission provide guidance on which degree option should be developed.
I. Opposition to Degree Requirement ,
- 1. Comments 2-13, 6-4, 9-3, 10-1, 11-1, 11-4, 12-8, 13-3, 14-4, 15-1, 16-8, 17-9, 18-1, 18-3, 19-4, 21-1, 22-8, 23-1, 24-3,
71 25-4, 27-10, 28-17, 29-3, 30-5, 32-5, 34-1, 35-7, 36-6, 38-5, 40-4, 41-1, 42-1, 43-1, 44-2, 44 6, 45-6, 46-1, 4682.3, 47-14, !
50-6, 51-6, 52-6, 54-1, 56-1, 56-8, 57-1, 57-20, 58-1, 60-2, 61-24, 62-1, 63-1, 64-1, 65-1, 65-2, 65-6, 65-7, 65-18, 65-27, 65-29, 65-31, 65-33, 65-35, 65-39, 65-40, 65-52, 65-77, 65-78, 65-81, 65-82, 65 92,65-116, 70-1, 71-1, 72-1, 74-1, 76 1, 77-1, 78-1, 78-8, 79-2, 79-10, 80-4, 82-1, 84 22, 46-1, 91-1, 91 8, 92-5, 96-1, 97-1, 98-1, 99-1, 103-1, 103-4, 105-7, 105-10, 105-13, 105-14, 105-15, 106 8, 113-1, 113-13, 114-9, 115-1, 121-11, 124-2, 124-11, 126-12, 127-1, 127-6, 130-1, 132-8, 133-1, 134-3, 135-1, 136-1, 136-8, 137 1, 140-2, 140-12, 141-3, 142-10, 144 53, 147-1, 147-12, 148-9, 151-7, 152-11, 153-2, 155-4, 156-1, 157-1, 157-4, 157-8, 157 46, 157-56, 158-1, 158-21, 159-1, 160-1, 160-7, 161-2, 161-26, 165-1, 165-53, 166-63, 167-1, 170-1, 170-2, 171-1, 171-10, 171-33, 172-9, 172-11, 174-1, 174-16, 174-21, 174-28, 176-3, 176-15, 176-24, 176-57, 176-59, 180-1, 182-1, 183-1, 183-3, 183-5, 184-2, 184-3, 184-15, 186-49, 188'5, 194-1, 194-6, 196-1, 197-1, 198-1, 202-1, and 203-12 express opposition to the contemplated degree re-quirement, generally, because it is considered to be unnecessary and unbeneficial.
[ Resolution: The staff recossends that the Commission provide guidance on which degree option should be developed.
J. Complete 8ackfit Analysis j
- 1. Cossents 16-7, 16-14, 16-15, 76-13, 158-2, 163 5, 165-2, 165-10, l 176-82, 176-83, 176-84, 176-85, 176 86, 176-87, 176 88, 176-89, 176-90, 176-91, 176-92, and 176-93 request that a bpckfit analysis be completed based on the criteria of 10 CFR 50.109. ,
Resolution: The Connission notes that the ANPRM under discussion f indicates that backfit and regulatory analyses will be developed :
after public comments are received and evaluated, prior to no-tice of any propo:ed rule. i i
I L _
~
~
72 K. Experience Requirement
' ,e
- 1. Comments 16-2 and 16-11 sention that there is not only a need to obtain "hot" operating experience but an even greater need to observe and participate in the startup of the plant if the candidates' plant is a near-term cperating license plant.
Resolution: The Commission notes that current requirements for licensed operators call for certification on the startup and shutdown experience received by appilcants pursuant to 10 CFR 55.9(a)(6), and demonstration, by means of an operating test or simulated oparating test, that applicants can operate or direct the licensed activities of licensed operators in a competent .. safe manner prusuant to 10 CFR 55.11(2)(b).
- 2. Comments 16-3 and 157-7 mention that the contemplated "hot operating" experience requirement at greater than 20 percent power seems arbitrary.
Resolution: As indicated in NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," eligibility requirements for licensed operator's include participation in reactor and plant operation, .
at power levels of at least 20 percent power operation. The i intent of the contemplated experience requirement would be to extend the minimum length of such experience, namely, one year at power levels greater than the current level of 20 percent power.
- 3. Coseents 17-8, 102-8, 102-9, 116-11, 126-3, 157-5, and 157-6 favor including more stringent experience requirements, a minimum of three to five years, rather than the current two-year experience requirement for senior operator candidates.
Resolution: Tt e NRC has provided minimum experience require-ments for itcensed operators as enumerated in NUREG-1021. It l l
l
73 is not the intent of this contemplated degree rule to recomend any change in the length of those requirements. ',
- 4. Connent 32-3 concludes that the contemplated degree rule would i
allow individuals with only one year of operating experience to apply for a senior operator license.
Resolution: The contemplated degree rule would not change the current two-year experience requirement for senior operator applicants; rather, it would propose that one of those two
. years include operating experience at greater than 20 percent l power.
- 5. Coseent 51-3 favors requiring senior operator candidates to possess a reactor operator license and one year "hot operating" l experience.
l Resolution: Currently, an applicant who does not possess a j four year degree in engineering or applied science is required l
by NRC regulation (NUREG-1021) to have been licensed as a reactor oerator. The NRC would propose no changes in this area I with regard to the contemplated degree requirement. -
s
[
- 6. Coseents 116-2 and 116-16 conclude that the contemplated degree l rule would require no experience at the facility for which the individual is to be licensed.
l i
i Resolution: The contemplated degree requirement would not l propose changing the current minimum requirement specified in j j NUREG-1021 of six sonths at the site for which the , senior 7
- opnator license is sought. l l
- 7. Coseent 150-54 requests that "similar cosearcial nuclear reactor" {
should not be restricted to a particular General Electric product j i
line. !
i 1
74 ,
Resolution: If the Cennission elects the degree rule option, the staff recommends that exceptions to the "similar, comeerical ,
nuclear reactor" criterion be considered on a case-by-case basis.
8, Comment 150-81 indicates that the contemplated requi'rement of one year of "hot" operating experience may impose unnecesssry restraints on the staffing and licensing of personnel at a facility prior to initial startup, therefore, consideration should be given to limiting this experience requirement to one senior operator per shift. Comment 146-18 states that the one year of "hot" operating experience should be flexible for those ,
l plants beginning startup and that "hot" experience should mean !
operation at any power level.
Resolution: If the Commission elects to proceed with rulemaking, the staff recommends that exceptions to the "hot" experience re-quirement be considered on a case-by-case basis.
- 9. Coseent 162-5 states that under a scenario where a Itcensee be-gins the operation of its first nuclear generating station, the "hot" operating experience requirement would necessitate pirating I of opera' tors from other licensees. .
i ,
{ Resolution: The comment has been noted.
L. Concurrent Policy Statement
- 1. Comments 7-26, 16 4, 25-5, and 150-44 endorse encouraging utili-ties to promote degreed senior operators into executive positions, j Comment 138-16 indicates that utilities have already achieved
! this goal by increasing efforts to move degreed and license ,
personnel into higher utility positions. Ccament 123-3 believes, ideally, utilities should hire only people with degrees to enter at the bottom of the operating ladder, work their way up through [
the operating department, and gain the experience that they need l 1
e 75 to enter a leadership position. Comment 157-11 notes it will be extremely difficult to implement personnel polic'f es that empha- '
size the opportunities for increased management responsibility ;
while telling reacter operators without a degree that they can no longer hold management positions. Comment 56-7 opposes any rule which would ensure or guarantee advancement.
Resolution: If the Commission elects to proceed with the de".'ee i rule and concurrent policy statement, the latter would encourage licensees to promote degreed senior operators into executive
, positions.
2.
Comments 25-5, 27-11,65-121, and 153 8 endorse the opportunity to earn a college degree with more support from utilities. Com-ment 157-53, on a survey of licensed operators by the Profes-sional Reactor Operator Society reports the following regarding an inquiry on whether utilities have a college degree program:
"no" (40 percent), "yes" (32 percent), and "yes, off site" (28 percent). Comment 191-4 points out that it will be very difficult for some utilities to obtain effective instruc-tion from local educational institutions because they ignore or misunderstand the distinction between engineering and technolo,gy.
8 Cossents191-61and191-27believethatenrollmentinanexteh l nel degree program which is liberal in the acceptance of credits l earned through prior schooling, training, and experiences is the I best means of obtaining a degree.
Resolution: If the Coenission elects to proceed with the degree rule and concurrent policy statement, the latter would encourage Itcensees to provide operators with opportunities to obtain degrees.
- 3. Comments 51-11, 65 61, and 127-7 favor securing college equivalent credits for operator training and work experience. ,
Comment 8-4 states that work experience credit must be limited '
\ l 76 1
, i i as to degree applicability in specific academic areas. Coment '
l 23 3 recommends that the contemplated degree rule ihclude a !
- provision that would allow a one-for-one exchange with college i classroom time for actual plant operating experience. Coments ;
) 24 8 and 65-83 suggest thst a licensed senior operator should !
! receive a degree associated with such a license, perhaps, a baccalaureate degree in reactor operations. Cossent 35 4 l 1 -
posits that academic institutions will be better than the NRC
- staff at defining an operator's requi md knowledge, Comment ,
! - 41-5 does not support academic credit for nuclear power plant !
I training and work experience unless academic institutions are j directly involved in providing the instruction. Consent 80-15 l
. points out that utility training departments seeking college [
! credit for their courses say tend to develop courses for college l l ,
credit rather than to prepare an individual for an operator (
i position. Comments 83-5 and 136-4 state that academic institu- l l tions may be reluctant to allow substantial c mdit for nuclear !
l power plant training and experience because such' credit would f reduce potential money paid for courses. Comment 121-4 main- l tains that nuclear power plant training and work experience are !
equivalent to college accredited certification. Comment 130 4 f
- states that special degne programs oriented to nuclear opera-- !
8 tions would be required to obtain college credit for appropriate f nuclear power plant training and work experience. Cosamnt 138 7 i j asintains that custoetzed plant design and operational differences (
would pmelude eny college from developing material for instruc-i tional purposes that would be beneficial. Comment 157-54 re- l I ports on an inquiry in a survey of licensed operators conducted [
! by the Professional Reactor Operator Society regarding whether non-degreed respondents knew how sany credits they*have towards t a baccalaureate degree in engineering or physical science:
46 percent "yes" and 54 percent "no".
l i Resolution: If the Cosmission elects the degree rule and con- f current policy statement, the latter would encourage licensees ;
I
__ _ ____f
l 77 to obtain credit for relevant operator training and wo.rk experience. '.
M. License Examination Process 1.
Comments 12-10, 26-16, 40-3, 44 4, 74-5, 74 6, 74 7, 74 8, 76-37, and 79-9 indicate one or more of the following: that the quali-fications of instructors and examiners of operators need to be enhanced; that both the written examination and its administra-tion procedures should be improved; that senior operator license requirements should include more troubje-shooting, simulator time, and courses in supervision; and that requalification ex-aminations should be performance based. Cosnent 96-5 notes that the senior operator license examination requires the same know-ledge level for both degreed and non-degreed condidates. Coenent 102-11 saintains that nuclear power plant personnel who do not need a license have them. Comment 140-4 indicates that the con-templated degree rule implies that current senior operators are not standard.
Resolution: In response, the Commission notes that t'he contem-plated tiegree rule would not include recommendations for enhanc-ing the licensing process. i
- 2. Consent 144-19 asks: "How would people enrolled in the degree progras maintain their licenses?"
Resolution: If the Commissicn elects to proceed with rulemaking, this question would be appropriately addressed in the regulatory analysis for such a rule. .
N. Operator Training
- 1. Comments 65-93, 80-2, 80-17, 80-18,138 8, and 158-13 recomend that any additional science-related knowledge necessary for a
78 ,
senior operator should be incorporated into utility training L programs. Comment 115-2 holds that the current quality of util-ity training negates the necessity for a degree requirement for
[
senior operators. Comment 191-35 suggests that any training needed by control room operators should be identified by the NRC j staff and communicated to the nuclear industry. ;
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission approve separating the training and education issues discussed in the 1 ANPRM and noting incorporation of any needed changes to the Policy statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power
! Plant Personnel to address severe accident training with other changes resulting from the two year trial program. l
- 2. Comment 138-48 states that the contemplated requirement will l i not achieve its desired results because the lack of standardized f plant designs has perpetuated the need for site-specific training
- which is not available within accredited institutions.
a !
i Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission approve j providing guidance on which degree option should be developed i .
and separating the training and educational issues discussed in ;
I the ANPRM.
i I
e i
j 3. Comment 144-20 expresses the concern of fincling enough colleges j i to handle the new requiret..nts.
I Resolution: If the Commission elects to proceed with rulemaking, this question would be appropriately addressed in the regulatory r i
analysis to support such a rule. ;
l
- 4. Comment 144-24 suggests that retraining necessitated by the l
contemplated degree requirement should be included on f requalification examinations. (
l j
)
. 1 0
o 79 l Resolution: The staff recomends that the Comission approve separating the training and educational issues discussed in the MPRM.
- 5. Comments65-125, 138-2, 147-3, 150-18, 167-4, 171-3, 172-2, 172-3, 174-12, 193-15, 195-1, 198-7, 198-9, and 198 11 maintain that current utility training for nuclear power plant personnel is extensive and has been improved - for example, diagnostic skills, coanunication effectiveness and team building abilities - ,
through participation in INP0 accreditation. Comments 147-4, 150-20, and 150-47 conclude that utility training programs are j superior to degree programs. Comment 161-25 points out the need to develop training programs that would enhance the general tech-nical knowledge of licensed operators.
- Resolution
- The staff recosseends that the Cosmission approve
! separating the training and educational issues discussed in the MPRM.
, 6. Comment 8-2 states that the academic coanunity has had sufficient
- time since the TNI accident to develop an educational response.
Comment 75-2 notes that prior to 1NI operators were trained ,
"not to go solid." Comment 75-3pointsoutthat,aftertheTN[
8 accident, even degreed engineers were confused (e.g. , "the hy-I drogenbubble"). Comments 191-6, 191-7, 191-8, 191-9, 191-10, ;
191-11, and 191-12 note that since TMI the matter of college l l 1evel education for operators has been addressed by some i l utilities.
I Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission approve separating the training and educational issues discussed in the 3 MPRM.
f
- 7. Comment 165-55 reports on a question asked by KMC, a utility l consulting fim, in a survey of licens(d operators regarding i
_m__m__ ~ - -
4 80 whether respondents believe senior operators should,be required to obtain college credits in technical subjects like mathematics, chemistry, reactor physics, hydraulics, mechanics, and health physics: yes (80 respondents) and no (213 respondents). Com-ment 165-56 reports whether respondents believe such subjects are covered to the proper depth in the present training program:
yes (32) and no (17).
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Comission approve i separating the training and educational issues discussed in the
' I ANPRM.
- 8. Coment 168-3 states that it is unclear what the Comission's
., long term goal is for the educational and operating requirements for licensed operators. i
, Resolution: The staff rcomends that the Commission approve
- separating the degree and educational issues discussed in the
' ANPRM and providing guidance on which degree rule option should be developed. ,
- 9. Cosnent k76-54 expresses the concern that time spent in trainipg a takes away from time in the plant, where the most important knowledge and experience is gained and utilized.
Resolution: The comment has been noted. :
- 10. Cossent 91-4 expresses the concern that this contemplated re-1 quirement could discriminate against operators who received !
training in the U.S. Navy nuclear program.
- I l Resolution: The staff recomends that the Consission provide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed. i i
1
81
- 0. Operator Staffing e ?
- 1. Comment 100-4 argues that an individual cannot be an expert in engineering, accident assessment, and senior operator while maintaining a high standard in all three jobs.
Resolution: The comment has been noted.
- 2. Comment 100-5 predicts that the contemplated requirener.t will lead to personnel shortages in the senior operator ranks because of the length of training time and/or lead to shortages in l on-shift licensed operator experience.
Resolution: If the Commission elects to proceed with rulemaking,
- a regulatory analysis would be necessitated, including its in- !
pact on personnel and aggregate experience level on shift, t
I l 3. Cosseents 150-55, 150-61, and 150-62 review the shift staffing i for a typical two-unit boiling water reactor, f i
l
- tesolution: The cosaments have been noted. ,
. i P. Operator Qualifications i !
1
- 1. Comment 134-3 believes senior operators selected to become shift supervisors should have these qualifications:
i (a) adequate plant and management experience to effectively supervise and/or direct a number of diverse power plant functions, including operations, maintenance,, health physics, and testing on a shift basis l
I i (b) intimate plant-specific knowledge gained from i
significant operating experience to detect off normal ;
l plant conditions l l l
4 82 (c) respect and credibility obtained with experience to ensure that the plant employees will follow the directions given during routine and abnormal , plant operations (d) a practical working knowledge of mechanical,' electrical, hydraulic, and pneumatic components and systems i
(e) a fundamental theoretical understanding of thermodynamics, hydraulics, reactor kinetics, physics, and electrical theory as required for diagnostics of power plant performance (f) an intimate knowledge of plant Technical Specifications, administrative, and facility operating procedures i
Comment 193-3 believes the optimum background that a shift supervisor should have includes close familiarity with the operating systems in the plant, real-time experience with the plant in various configurations of heatup, cooldown, startup, shutdown, power operations and testing and specifically focused \ raining on emergency operating procedures and good ;
operating practices. In addition, the shift supervisor shouldi possess a thorough understanding of the practical aspects of reactor theory, thermodynamics, chemistry, and radiological l controls as they apply to the specific facility. Cossent 107-3 specifies two important characteristics of a shift supervisor; i (a) sound technical knowledge of why operating events are as they are and (b) the ability to reason quickly and logically to establish and initiate a safe course of action in an emer- i gency situation. Comment 99 3 centions that the qualities of a good operator includes: being able to think under pressure, i understanding the interrelations between systems, and good leadership abilities. Comment 147 7 mentions the following as traits expected of senior operators: saturejudgment, strong 1 l
i O
83 learfership attributes, a comitment to excellence, thorough knowledgeofplantequipmentandprocedures,andcgreful-attention to detail.
Resolutinn The comments have been noted.
- 2. Comments 138 13, 161-24, 165-49, 166 59, and 198-12 indicate l that the qualifications of licensed operators should be based onjobandtaskanalyses. Comments 158-13 and 161-23 support improvements in the qualifications of licensed operators in the control room. Comment 191 22 holds that assurance that Itcensed operators are qJalified should be handled through the licensing process. Coenent 103-3 maintains that operator quali-fications should ba performance based. Comment 113 2 defines "cperator" as machine attendant. Coenent 113-3 provides another ;
definition of "operator" as a per wi who is in tune with his or her equipment. :
1 Resolution: The comments have been noted.
Q. History on Contemplated Degree Rule
! . 1. Comment 14 7 expresses concern that the MAC does not perceive -
8 the nature of commercial nuclear plant operations accurately. '
l Comments 35-9, 35-10, 35 11, 35-12, 35-13, 35-14, 40-1, 105 3, 121-1, 135-3, 144-1, and 144-6 provide a historical account on
' the rulemaking under consideration that can be traced to the *
"Supervisory Operator's License" that was contemplated in the early sixties to present day requirements in 10 CFR 50.54, "Conditions of Licenses."
Resolution: The coments have been noted.
i
84 .
R. Research Reactors i
a
- 1. Cospents 54 3, 54-6, 58 7, 112-2, and 112-3 argue thst the contemplated degree requirement for senior operators should not be applicable to research reactors.
Resolution: In response, the Commission notes it does not intend to make the contemplated degree requiremont applicable to research reactors, i
S. Stattatics on se,11or Operators !
- 1. Coenent 50-1 reports that less than one percent of senior opera-tors it the commenter's plant possess a baccalaureate degree.
Cosnents 102-13 and 122-1 report that .,warly all licensed opera-
- tors in the control room do not have a degree and those operators that do, possess degrees in areas unrelated to nuclear power j plant operations, j Rcsolution
- The percentage of 50s with a baccalaureate degree i in engineering or physical science for each year froe 1980 to j '
1987 aret 17 percent,19 percent, 21 percent, 23 percent, 25 percent, 26 percent, 27 percent, and 28 percent, respectivefy.
s T. Educate Public on Nuclear Power
) 1. Coesunts 62-13, 94-3, 105-1, 121-10 and 142-12 call fer educat- .
ing the public with respect to the safety of nucleer power versus other methods of providing electricity. Comment 140 1 holds that the ANPRM is designed to satisfy public, opinion.
Resolution: The coaments have been noted.
6 L
85 U. ANPRM's Relationship to Other Regulations e i
- 1. Comments 158-4, 160-3, 163-2, 165-3, and 167-8 perceive the ANPRM as being in conflict with the Commission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission approve (i) separating the training and educational h sues discussed in the ANPRM and (ii) noting incorporation of any needed changes to
% ' icy statement under discussion regarding severe accident ining with other changes resulting from the two year trial program.
- 2. Comments 192-24 and 192-25 state that the contemplated degree requirement could be directly contradictory to the Commission Policy Statement on Nuclear Power Plant Stsff Working Hours.
. i Resolution: The staff recoemends the Commission provide guidance on which degree rule option should be developed.
V. !ndustry's Study and Views Regarding MPRM:
KMC,autilityconsultingfirm,andthe22utilitieswhocomprise[
8
, the Qua'lifications of Reactor Operators (QRO) utility group provided t coeunents on the ANPR*i based on (i) a survey of licensed operators and shift technical advisors and (ii) a report entitled "Operator j Response to Incidents: A Probabliistic Risk Perspective" (1986),
completed by the Delian Corporation.
- 1. Comments 165-70, 165-72, 165-84, 165-119, 165-133,,165-134, and 165-135 propose a focused training program dealing with severe accident conditions and cospled with upgraded emergency proca-dures as a better alternative than a degree requirement to en-
- hance operator response. Comment 165-140 says tha many plants
86 -
now have better plant-specific emergency procedures and.instru-mentation for accident monitoring than plants upon which the PRA study is based. Comments 165-80, 165-85, 165-99, 165-114, 165-122, and 165-130 conclude that operators are aware of what action to take under some of the more complex plant conditions because of emergency operating procedures and operator training. Comments 165-86, 165-87, 165-95. 165-98, 165-100, 165-101, IC5-105, 165-106, 165-108, 165-109, 165-110, 165-115, 165-116, 165-117, 165-118, 165-123, 165-124, 165-325, 165-126, 165-127, 165-128, 165-131, and 165-132 argus that for unlikely accident stat 61 rot properly covered by E0Ps and operator training, the appro-priate solution would be to review or upgrade training and pro-cedures rather than to require a degree for senior operators.
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission approve separating the training and educational issues discussed in the ANPRM.
- 2. Comments 165-68 and 165-77 convey the following attributes as being associated with the acquisition of a college degree which industry experts believe would be of significant value in re-spending'to accident sequences: (a) enhanced engineering know, ledge, (b) improved problem-solving capability, (c) inte- f l grated plant perspective, and (d) enhanced comunication skills.
Comments 165-69 and 165-78 posit that the relationship 5etween the degree process and the acquisition of these attributes is unknown, and the level of enhancement varies substantially !
depending on the individual institution, its curriculum, the quality of instruction, and the motivation and aptitude of the individual. Comment 165-79 establishes a relationship between the fcur attributes under discussion and the amount of time available to bring these attributes to bear during accident con-Otions. Comment 165-92 notes that as time increases for cer-tain accident sGquences, the benefits associated with degreed
87 personnel become less important due to technical support. per-sonnel being activated. Co6nent 165-82 notes that'the brevity of an anticipated transient without seres (ATWS) does not allow an operator to bring the attributes under discussion to bear.
Comment 165-81 reports that the presence of saturation conai-tions, as for example, in PWR primary systems, presents a situa-tion in which the attribute associated with a degree might enhance the operator's ability to assess plant conditions.
Coseent 165-83 points out that when operators receive ambiguous information or encounter situations not dealt with by proce-dures, some of the attributss associated with a degree could be beneficial. Comments 165-88, 165-89, 165-90, 165-91, 165-93, 165-94, 165-96, 185-103, 165-104, 165-107, 165-111, 165-112, 165-113, 165-120, 165-121, and 165-129 acknowledge that there are some plant states where it may be beneficial if the opera-ter's ability to diagnose the accident could be enhanced over and above the abilities acquired through licensing and training programs such as small break LOCA, loss of offsit's power, and steam generator tube rupture.
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Coanission approve separatiJgthetreiningandeducationalissuesdiscussedinthe.
, ANPRM. f
- 3. Comments 165-71, 165-97, and 165-102 report that the Operator Action Event Tree (OAET) review process identifies the following plant conditions where the attributes associated with a degree may ee beneficial:
(a) ambiguous and conflicting (either real or perceived) symp-tons (e.g., saturation conditions in PWR primary systems)
(b) a combination of threats to different critical safety func-tions require operator response (e.g., a steam generator tube rupture occurs as a result of events following a less-of-offsite power accident) 4
- - - - - - , . - - , . - . , - - - - , . -,,-- - , _ _ ,_ _ _,.--- .._---_---,....,, ,___ _ ,-. ,,.-_.-.,,.-,-,.__--n , ._,n-- ,.,--n - ...
w (c) guidanceprod'adintheplantspecificeme{gencyoperat-ing procedures may not be clear and/or existing training programs say not address the response to certain accident conditions in a comprehensive fashion (e.g., responding to degraded core conditions)
(d) degraded or failed equipment must be repaired or Nestored to bring the plant to a safe shutdown condition -
(e) unfasi far and/or complex operator actions (e.g., using backup methods to bring the plant to a safe shutdown condition)
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission approve separating the training and educational issues diccussed in the MPRM.
- 4. Comments 165-74 and 165-76 reconnend that the contemplated degree rule not be imposed because of its potential negative impact on safety.
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Comnission provide guidance on which degree option should be developed. [
s
- 5. C m ent 165-73 suggests that there are more effective and per-ha;s cost-effective ways of enhancing operating capabilitie: to deal with accidents rather than imposing a degree rule. Conwnent l
' 165-75 states that a quantitative assessment of the benefit of the contemplated rule was not performed nor is it considered possible. .
Resolution: The staff recommends that the Commission approve separating the training and educational issues discussed in the :
, MPRN; l
f i
- --- , - - - ,- < , - - - , ,,,,_..,-----,--n- - - . , - - - - - , . , . , - - - , - . - , - --~- - - -,-
i .
89
- 6. Comment 161-1 endorses the coments submitted on behalf of QR0 by KMC. Coswants 183-4, 188-1, "d 208-3 concur with th'e comments submitted by NUMARC and e,4C which address utility concerns with the ANPRM. In Comment 189-2, PROS requests that the Commission review its coments because there is no other organization in existence that can quote survey results based on the number of man hours of operational experience that PROS can.
Resolution: The steff recomends th ', the Comission approve separating the training and educatic al issues discussed in the
, ANPRM.
l u
O r
- , .--n, - . .,., , - - - , . . . . , - - . - - - - - - - - - - . - - - - - , , , . . , , . - . - . -
_n, -,. ---.,- --- n -, , - , - - - - . . - . . --
IV. INDEX OF PUBLIC COMMENTS Coment RsolvedBy Coment .esolved
- By Coment Resolved By 3
2-1 A3 7-8 A8 10-2 A8 2-2 A6 7-9 A9 10-3 A17 2-3 A8 7-10 A10 10-4 A17 2-4 A9 7-11 All 10-5 A19 2-5 A10 7-12 A12 10-6 A8 2-6 A14 7-13 A13 11-1 Il 2-7 A16 7-14 A14 11-2 E2 2-8 A17 7-15 A15(a) 11-3 El
,2-9 A18 7-16 A16 11-4 Il 2-10 A19 7-17 A17 12-1 El(b) 2-11 E3 7-18 A18 12-2 A17 Z 12 El 7-19 A19 12-3 E3 2-13 Il 7-20 A20 12-4 A17 2-14 El(b) 7-21 E2 12-5 A17 3-1 B1 7-22 A13 12-6 E3 3-2 B1 7-23 A2 12-7 B2 3-3 B1 7-24 Al 12-8 11 4-1 F1 7-25 E2 12-9 El(b) 5-1 El 7-26 El 12-10 'M1 5-2 El(b) -
7-27 A16 13-1 Al
~ 6-1 El 7-28 A16 13-2 A3 [
6-2 El(b) 7-29 A16 13-3 Il 6-3 A14 7-30 A16 13-4 E3 6-4 Il 7-31 H1 13-5 A9 6-5 El 8-1 H1 13-6 A10 6-6 El 8-2 N6 13-7 A14 7-1 A1 8-3 A13 13-8 A17 7-2 A2 8-4 L3 13-9 ,
A18 7-3 A3 8-5 A9 13-10 A20 7-4 A4 9-1 El 13-11 A1 7-5 A5 9-2 A14 13-12 El 7-6 A6 9-3 11 13-13 El(b) 7-7 A7(a) 10-1 11 13-14 El
Coment Resolved By Cement Resolved By Cament Resolved By 13-15 Al 16-9 A13 20-4 '. A5 13-16 A19 16-10 El 20-5 A6 13-17 A3 16-11 K1 20-6 A7(s) 13-18 A3 16-12 E2 20-7 A8 13-19 A4 16-13 E2 20-8 A9 13-20 A20 16-14 J1 20-9 A10 13-21 A20 16-15 J1 20-10 All 13-22 A9 16-16 E2 20-11 A17 13-23 A14 17-1 El 20-12 A14 13-24 A17 17-2 A8 20-13 A15(b) 14-1 El 17-3 E3 20-14 A18 14-2 E3 17-4 Elf.b) 20-15 A19 14-3 A14 17-5 A3 20-16 A20 14-4 11 17-6 A14 21-1 Il 14-5 El(b) 17-7 A17 21-2 El 14-6 El(b) 17-8 K3 21-3 Al 14-7' Q1 17-9 K3 21-4 A2 15-1 11 17-10 El(b) 21-5 A3 15-2 A17 17-11 A17 21-6 A7 15-3 El 18-1 Il 21-7 A8 i 15-4 El(b)
- 18-2 A17 21-8 A9 ,
, 15-6 El(b) 18-3 Il 21-9 All t 15-5 El 18-4 A8 21-10 A14 15 7 A14 18-5 A3 21-11 A16 16-1 81 19-1 El 21-12 A17 16-2 K1 19-2 A8 21-13 A18 16-3 K2 19-3 El(b) 21-14 A19 16-4 L1 19-4 Il 21-15 A20 16-5 03 19-5 El 21-16 . E3 16-6 E2 20-1 Al 22-1 E2 16-7 J1 20-2 A2 22-2 AP 16-8 Il 20-3 A4 22-3 A3 l
i
Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved 8y Comment Resolved By 22-4 El(b) 26-9 A16 28-1 . Al 22-5 A17- 26-10 A14 28-2 A3 22-6 D1 26-11 A18 28-3 A2 22-7 A8 26-12 El 28-4 A4 22-8 Il 26-13 E2 28-5 A7(b) 23-1 Il 26-14 A17 28-6 A8 23-2 El(b) 26-15 E3 28-7 A9 23-3 L3 26-16 M1 28-8 A10 23-4 A8 26-17 D3 28-9 All
'23-5 E3 '26-18 D3 28-10 A12 24-1 El 26-19 A16 28-11 A14 24-2 B1 26-20 A16 28-12 A15(a) 24-3 Il 26-21 A16 28-13 E3 24-4 El 26-22 A16 28-14 A18 24-5 E3 26-23 A16 28-15 A19 24-6 A17 27-1 Al 28-16 A20 24-7 A14 27-2 A3 28-17 Il 24-8 L3 27-3 A8 28-18 A14 25-1 E2 27-4 A9 29-1 E2 25-2 A14 27-5 A12 29-2 El
, 25-3 El(b)
- 27-6 A14 29-3 11 .
25-4 Il 27-7 A17 29-4 A8 f 25-5 L2 27-8 A18 29-5 E3 25-6 El 27-9 A20 30-1 El l 26-1 Al 27-10 11 30-2 A2 l 26-2 A3 27-11 L2 30-3 A2 26-3 A4 27-12 El 30-4 A17 26-4 A7(a) 27-13 A14 30-5 Il 26-5 A8 27-14 A14 30-6 . A4 26-6 All 27-15 A14 '30-7 El 26-7 A14 27-16 A14 30-8 E2 26 8 A15(a) 27-17 A14 30-9 El l
l l
l k
93-Comment Resolved By Comment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 32-1 A14 35-7 Il 38-8 e A'14 32-2 A17 35-8 D3 38-9 A16 32-3 K4 -
35-9 Q2 38-10 A17 32-4 A17 35-10 Q2 38-11 A18 32-5 11 35-11 Q2 38-12 A19 32 S El(b) 3S-12 Q2 38-13 A20 32-7 A17 35-13 Q2 39-1 Al 32-8 E2 35-14 Q2 39-2 A2 34-1 Il 35-15 E2 39-3 A3
. 34-2 A17 36-1 El 39-4 A4 34-3 Al 'sC-2 E2 39-5 A5 34-4 A2 36-3 A14 39-6 A7(a) 34-5 A3 36-4 A17 39-7 A8 34-6 A4 36-5 E3 39-8 El(b) 34-7 A6 36-6 Il 39-9 A10 34-8 A7(a) 37-1 Al 39-10 All 34-9 A8 37-2 A3 39-11 A12 34-10 A9 37-3 A4 39-12 A17 34-11 All 37-4 A7(a) 39-13 A15(a) 34-12 A14 37-5 A8 39-14 A16 34-13 A15(a)
- 37-6 All 39-15 A18
[34-14 A16 37-7 A14 39-16 A20 [
34-15 A17 37-8 A17 40-1 Q2 34-16 A18 37-9 A18 40-2 El 34-17 A19 37-10 A19 40-3 M1 34-18 A20 37-11 A20 40-4 Il 34-19 E3 38-1 A1 40-5 El 35-1 A17 38-2 A2 40-6 E2 35-2 A19 38-3 A3 40-7 '
A17 i
35-3 A17 38-4 A4 ' 40-8 A8 l 35-4 L3 38-5 11 41-1 11
, 35-5 A19 38-6 A8 41-2 El 35-6 03 38-7 A9 41-3 A13 l
l Resolved By Coment Resolved By Resolved By Cement Coment A14 46-15 -
eel (d)
El 43-25 41-4 46-16 El(d) 43-26 A14 42-1 Il l A14 46-17 El(d)
E3 43-27 42-2 46-18 El(d) 43-28 A14 42-3 A1 A16 46-19 El(d)
A2 43-29 42-4 46-20 A8 f 43-30 A16 '
42-5 E2 46-21 A8 43-31 A19 42-6 A14 46-22 A8 44-1 A16 42-7 A8 46-23 Il A3 44-2 Il 42-8 47-1 A1 44-3 A17 43-1 11 47-2 A3 44-4 M1 43-2 El A4 E2 47-3 A8 44-5 43-3 47-4 A6 El 44-6 Il 43-4 47-5 A7(a)
A17 45-1 El 43-5 47-6 A9 45-2 A8 43-6 A1 47-7 All 45-3 A17 !
43-7 A2 47-8 A14 45-4 A17 43-8 A3 47-9 A16 45-5 E2 43-9 A4 Il 47-10 AD A6 45-6 43-10 47-11 A18 46-1 Il 43 11 A7(a) A19 El 47-12 .
A8 46-2 i
, 43-12 47-13 A20 46-3 81 43-13 A9 47-14 Il A10 46-4 A15(c) 43-14 48-1 A1 46-5 E3 43-15 A12 48-2 A3 46-6 E3 43-16A13 48-3 A4 46-7 E3 43-17 A14 A5 A17 48-4 A15(a) 46-8 43-18 48-5 A6 46-9 03 43-19 A16 A16 48-6 . A7(a)
A7 46-10 43-20 48-7 A8 46-11 A16 43-21 A18 A10 A16 48-8 A19 46-U 43-22 48 9 All 46-13 A16 43-23 A2 A12 A16 48 10 E2 46-14
- 43-24
Comment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 48-l', A14 49-22 A16 53-6 '. A8 48-12 A15(a) 49-23 A16 53-7 El(b) 48-13 A16 50-1 E3 53-8 El 48-14 A16 50-2 E3 53-9 All 48-15 A16 50-3 A14 53-10 El 48-16 A16 50-4 A14 53-11 El 48-17 A18 50-5 E2 53-12 A16 48-18 A20 50-6 11 53-13 A14 48-19 di 50-7 E2 53-14 A16 48-20 El 51-1 A18 53-15 A16 48-21 El 51-2 A1 53-16 A18 48-22 A8 51-3 K5 53-17 A20 49-1 A1 51-4 All 53-18 A20 49-2 A2 51-5 El(b) 54-1 II 49-3 A3 51-6 Il 54-2 E3 49-4 A4 51-7 A8 54-3 R1 49-5 A5 51-8 A14 54-4 E3 49-6 A6 51-9 El(b) 54-5 El 49-7 A7(a) 51-10 A8 54-6 R1 49-8 A8 51-11 L3 55-1 E3 49-9 A9 51-12 A15(a) 55-2 El ,
49-10 El(b) 51-13 A8 55-3 A17 i 49-11 All 52-1 A8 55-4 A17 49-12 A12 52-2 El(b) 55-5 A17 49-13 A13 52-3 El 55-6 A4 49-14 A14 52-4 A3 55-7 A8
49-15 A15(a) 52-5 A17 55-8 El 49-16 A16 52-6 11 55-9 A1 49-17 A17 53-1 A1 55-10 . A4 49-18 A17 53-2 A3 55-11 A5 49-19 A19 53-3 A4 55-12 A8 49-20 A20 53-4 A7(a) 55-13 A14 49-21 A16 53-5 El(b) 55-14 A20
Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 55-15 D1 57-3 A2 59-7 A16 El E 55-16 57-4 A4 59-8 A17 l 55-17 D3 57-5 A5 59-9 A16 56-1 11 57-6 A7(a) 59-10 A19 !
56-2 A16 57-7 A8 59-11 A14 56-3 A16 57-8 A9 59-12 A17 56-4 A16 57-9 All 59-13 A17 56-5 A17 57-10 A12 59-14 E3 56-6 A16 57-11 A14 59-15 A19 56-7 L1 57-12 A16 59-16 A19 56-8 Il 57-13 A18 59-17 A19 56-9 A1 57-14 A19 59-18 A17 56 10 A2 57-15 A20 59-19 A17 56-11 A3- 57-16 El(b) 59-20 A8 56-12 A4 57-17 A17 59-21 E3 56-13 A5 57-18 El(b) 60-1 51 56-14 A6 57-19 A18 60-2 Il 56-15 A7(a) 57-20 Il 60-3 A8 56-16 A8 57-21 E3 60-4 A8 56-17 A9 57-22 E3 60-5 El 56-18 A10 58-1 Il 60-6 El
' 56-19 All 58-2 El 60-7 E1 [
56-20 A12 58-3 A16 61-1 E3 56-21 A14 58-4 A13 61-2 El 56-22 A15(a) 58-5 A4 61-3 El 56-23 A16 58-6 A13 61-4 El(b) .
56-24 A17 58-7 R1 61-5 E3 56-25 A18 59-1 El 61-6 El(b) 56-26 A19 59-2 A16 61-7 ,
A1 56-27 A20 59-3 A16 61-8 A2 56-28 A19 59-4 A16 61-9 A3 57-1 Il 59-5 A16 61-10 A5 57-2 A1 59-6 A16 61-11 -
A6
Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 61-12 A7(a) 63-4 El 65-22 . A9 61-13 A8 63-5 A8 65-23 All 61-14 A9 63-6 A8 65-24 A12 61-15 A10 63-7 A8 65-25 A17 61-16 All 64-1 Il 65-26 A20 61-17 A12 54-2 El(b) 65-27 Il 61-18 A14 64-3 El(a) 65-28 El(b) 61-19 A15(a) 64-4 E3 65-29 Il 61-20 A16 64-5 A17 65-30 El(b) 61-21 64-6 A18 A8 65-31 11 61-22 A19 64-7 A8 65-32 El 61-23 A20 64-8 El 65-33 Il 61-24 Il 65-1 Il 65-34 El(b) 61-25 G1 65-2 Il 65-35 Il 61-26 A4 65-3 El 65-36 El(b)
'61-27 A19 65-4 El 65-37 A6 62-1 Il 65-5 El(b) 65-38 El 62-2 A1 65-6 11 65-39 Il 62-3 A3 65-7 Il 65-40 Il 62-4 A8 65-8 El 65-41 A8
, 62-5 All
- 65-9 A14 65-42 A17 ,
, 62-6 A12 65-10 A3 65-43 E3 i 62-7 A14 65-11 A8 65-44 A3 62-8 A17 65-12 El 65-45 A9 62-9 A18 65-13 A8 65-46 A9 62-10 A19 65-14 El 65-47 All l 62-11 E3 65-15 El 65-48 A12 62-12 A20 65-16 El(b) 65-49 A14 62-13 T1 65-17 El 65-50 . A17 l
62-14 A3 65-18 Il 65-51 A20 j
63-1 Il 65-19 El(b) 65-52 11
, 63-2 E3 65-20 A3 65-53 El l 63-3 A2 65-21 A8 65-54 A14
Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Comtrent Resolved By 65-55 A3 65-88 E2 65-121 ,
L2 65-56 A8 65-G9 E2 65-122 A19 65-57 All 65-90 A14 65-123 A14 65-58 A14 65-91 E2 65-124 El 65-59 A17 65-92 Il 65-125 NS 65-60 El(b) 65-93 N1 66-1 A1 65-61 L3 65-94 A1 66-2 A3 65-62 A19 65-95 E3 66-3 A13 65-63 El(b) 65-96 El 66-4 A6 65-64 A16 65-97 A3 66-5 A14
' 65-65 El(b) 65-98 A8 67-1 A1 65-66 A14 55-99 A9 67-2 E3 65-67 A1 65-100 All 67-3 E2 65-68 A17 65-101 A17 68-1 A1 65-69 A3 65-102 A1 68-2 A13 65-70 A8 65-103 A2 68-3 A4 65-71 El 65-104 A3 68-4 A7(a) 65-72 A12 65-105 A4 68-5 A8 65-73 A14 65-106 A5 68-6 A13 65-74 A17 65-107 A8 68-7 A14 65-75 A20
- 65-108 All 68-S A19
' 65-76 El 65-109 A14 68-9 A20 [
65-77 II 65-110 A15(a) 70-1 Il 65-78 Il 65-111 , A16 70-2 E3 65-79 El 65-112 A17 70-3 A2 65-80 El(b)65-113 A18 70-4 El 65-81 Il 65-114 A19 70-5 A8 65-82 11 65-115 A20 70-6 A8 65-83 L3 65-116 Il 70-7 , A8 65-84 A6 65-117 El(b) 71-1 Il 65-85 A6 65-118 A17 71-2 A19 65-86 AS65-119 El(b) 71-3 A8 65-87 A1 65-120 A16 71-4 A8
O Comment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 71-5 A8 73 11 A18 76-2 . El 71-6 A8 73-12 A19 76-3 E2 71-7 El(b) 73-13 A17 76-4 El 71-8 A1 73-14 C1 76-5 E) 71-9 A2 73-15 C1 76-6 El 71-10 A4 73-16 C1 76-7 El 71-11 A5 73-17 C2 76-8 A8 71-12 A7(a) 73-18 C2 76-9 A8 71-13 El 73-19 C1 76-10 El 71-14 A10 73-20 A2 76-11 El 71-15 All 73-21 C2 76-12 E3 71-16 A12 74-1 Il 76-13 J1 71-17 A14 74-2 A1 76-14 G1 71-18 A16 74-3 A20 76-15 A1 71-19 A18 74-4 A20 76-16 A2 71-20 A19 74-5 M1 76-17 A3 71-21 E3 74-6 M1 76-18 A4 71-22 E3 74'7 M1 76-19 A6 72-1 11 74-8 M1 76-20 A7(a) 72-2 El 74-9 E3 76-21 A8 72-3 El
- 75-1 E2 76-22 All 3
, 72-4 A14 75-2 N6 76-23 A12 i 72-5 A2 75-3 N6 76-24 A13 73-1 A1 75-4 El 76-25 A14 l 73-2 A3 75-5 El(b) 76-26 A15(a) 73-3 A4 75-6 A16 76-27 A16 73-4 A7(a) 75-7 El(b) 76-28 A17 73-5 A8 75-8 El(b) 76-29 A18
- 73-6 A9 75-9 El(b) 76-30 . A19 73-7 A10 75-10 El 70-31 A20 73-8 A14 75 11 El(b) 76-32 E3 73-9 A16 75-12 A14 76-33 El l 73-10 A17 76-1 Il 76-34 E3 l
c-
-100-Resolved Ej Coment Resolved 8y Coment Resolved By Coment 76-35 E3 79-6 A19 82-2 e E3 76-36 D4 79-7 A16 82-3 El 76-37. M1 79-8 El(b) 82-4 A14 76-38 03 79-9 M1 82 5 El 76-39 D3 79-10 11 83-1 E3 76-40 F1 80-1 A8 83-2 E3 77-1 Il 80-2 N1 83-3 A14 77-2 A8 80-3 A7(a) 83-4 A17 77-3 A8 80-4 11 83-5 L3 77-4 El(b) 80-5 El 83-6 A2 77-5 A3 80-6 A8 83-7 E2 77-6 A19 80-7 A13 83-8 E2 77-7 A3 80-8 El 83-9 E2 77-8 A8 80-9 El 83-10 A8 i7-9 A14 80-10 El(b) 83-11 02 77-10 A17 80-11 A14 8?-12 E3 77-11 A18 80-12 El 84-1 A1 77-12 A8 80-13 El(b) 84-2 A2
, 77-13 A8 80 14 A3 84-3 A3 78-1 11 , 80-15 L3 84-4 A4 80-16 A13 84-5 A5 >
. 78-2 A8 I
s 78-3 A8 80-17 N1 84-6 A6 80-18 N1 84-7 A7(a) 78-4 A8 78-5 ' El(b) 81-1 El(b) 84-8 A8 78-6 AJ 81-2 A14 84-9 A9 81-3 A17 84-10 A10 78-7 A17 81-4 A16 84-11 A12 78-8 11 81-5 A14 84-12 A13 78-9 A8 84 A14 79-1 El(b) 81-6 El(b) 81-7 El(b) 84-14 A15(a) l 79-2 11 84-15 A16 l 79-3 A14 81-8 El(b)
A17 84-16 A16 79-4 C1 81-9 84-17 A16 79-5 A14 82-1 11 f
I l
t
". -101-Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 84-18 A17 88-8 E3 93-3 A14 84-19 A18 89-1 A3 93-4 A14 84-20 A20 89-2 A8 93-5 E2 84-21 E2 89-3 A9 93-6 E3 84-22 11 89-4 All 94-1 A16 84-23 A8 89-5 A12 94-2 A16 85-1 El 89-6 A14 95-1 El 85-2 A19 89-7 A17 95-2 A16 85-3 A2 89-8 A17 95-3 A16
. 85-4 A14 89-9 E3 95-4 A16 85-5 A8 90-1 A15(a) 95-5 A1 85-6 El 90-2 A16 95-6 A3 85-7 E3 90-3 A17 95-7 A19 85-8 El(b) 90-4 A18 95-8 A17 85-9 El 90-5 A19 96-1 11 86-1 Il 90-6 A19 96-2 El(b) 86-2 El 91-1 11 96-3 A8 86-3 El 91-2 E2 96-4 E3 86-4 A14 91-3 E3 96-5 M1 86-5 A2 91 4 N10 96-6 El(b)
, 87-1 El 91-5 A8 96-7 El(b) .;.
, 87-2 A8 91-6 A8 96-8 El f 87-3 A16 91-7 C3 97-1 11 87-4 El(b) 91-8 Il 97-2 A19 87-5 0 92-1 A14 98-1 Il 87-6 D1 92-2 A19 98-2 El 88-1 A3 92-3 E3 38-3 T2 88-2 A8 92-4 A17 98-4 A18 88-3 All 92-5 -
Il 98-5 . B1 88-4 A12 92-6 El 98-6 A8 88 5 A14 92-7 El(b) 99-1 11 88-6 A17 93-1 E3 99-2 El 88-7 A17 93-2 E3 99-3 P1 l
{
l
-102-Resolved By Resolved By Coment ResolvedBy[ Coment g Il 105-8 . A2 El(b) 103-1 El 1-4 El 105-9 A14 103-2 11 9-5 P4 105-10 E3 103-3 A2 00-1 E3 105-11 A16 103-4 A19
.00-2 A17 105-12 El(b) 103-5 Il
.00-3 A17 105-13 01 105 6 Il g 100-4 A2 105-14 02 103-7 11 100- 5 Al 105-15 A14 104-1 A1 100-6 A2 106-1 104-2 100-7 El(b) 106-2 A3 A3 D1 104-3 A4 10i-1 A4 106-3 El 104-4 A5 101-2 AS 106-4 A19 104-5 A8 101-3 A6 106-5 E3 104-6 A14 101-4 A7(a) 106-6 A16 104-7 A17 101-5 A8 106-7 A16 104-8 Il 101-6 A9 106-8 104-9 E3 107-1 El 101-7 104-10 All A2 107-2 El(d) 102-1 A13 A17 104-11 P1 102-2 A14 107-3 A3 104-12 El(d) 102-3 A15(a) 107-4 A19 104-13 El ,
102-4 A16 107-5 A17
- 104-14 H1 r 102-5 A16 107-6 El(b) 104-15 C4 107-7
, 102-6 104 16 A17 >
A8 E3 102-7 A18 109-1 K3 104-17 E3 102-8 A19 109 2 X3 104-18 A14 102-9 A20 109-3 A8 104-19 A14 102-10 T1 109-4 105-1 E2
- 102-11 M1 A2 109-5 A8 105-2 E3 1 102-12 109-6 .
105 3 Q2 51 E3 102 13 Il 110-1 105 4 E3 A14 110-2 102-14 El(b)
A14 105-5 A14 l 102-15 A14 110-3 I A8 105-6 A14 102-16 11 110 4 E?
105-7 102-17
-103-Comment R_esolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved Bv 110-5 E2 n4-8 A5 '
116-10 . El(b) 110-6 E3 114-9 Il 116-11 K3 111-1 E3 114-10 A7(a) 116-12 El(b) 111-2 E3 114-11 A8 116-13 A8 111-3 A14 114-12 A9 116-14 A14 111-4 A14 114-13 A10 116-15 A17 111-5 E2 114-14 All 116-16 K6 111-6 E3 n4-15 All 116-17 D2 112-1 A6 114-16 A12 117-1 E3 112-2 R1 114-17 A13 117-2 A3 112-3 R1 n4-18 A14 117-3 A14 n2-4 El 114-19 A15(a) 117-4 Ellb) 112-5 El 114-20 A16 117-5 A16 113-1 Il M4-21 A16 117-6 E2 113-2 PS 114-22 A16 H8-1 Al 113-3 PS 114-23 A16 118-2 A4 113-4 El(b) 114-24 A16 118-3 AS 113-5 El 114-25 A17 118-4 A7(b) l 113-6 El(b) 114-26 A18 118-5 A8 113-7 El 114-27 A19 118-6 A9 H3-8 El
- 114-28 A20 118-7 All 113-9 E3 H5-1 Il 118-8 A12 [
H3-10 Al 115-2 N1 H8-9 A14 113-11 A3 115-3 El(b) 118-10 A17 113-12 A14 116-1 E3 118-n A20 113-13 Il 116-2 K6 119-1 E3 114-1 A8 116-3 E3 119-2 E3 114 2 A8 116-4 El(b) 119-3 A14 n4-3 A8 116-5 El(b) 119-4 , A14 114 4 Al 116-6 A16 119-5 E2 114-5 A2 116-7 A17 119-6 E2 114-6 A3 116-8 El 120-1 Al 114-7 A4 D6-9 E3 120-2 A3
-104-Coment Resolved By Comment Resolved By Coment Resolved By i
120-3 A4 122-5 A4 125-11 , 2 120-4 A4 122-6 El(b) 125-12 E3 120-5 A4 122-7 A8 126-1 El 120-6 A5 122-8 AS 126-2 E3 120-7 A5 122-9 D2 126-3 K3 120-8 A6 122-10 D2 126-4 El(b) 120-9 A7(a) 123-1 A14 126-5 El(b) 120-10 A9 123-2 El(b) 126-6 A8 120-11 A10 123-3 L1 126-7 A14
,120 12 A12 123-4 A3 126-8 A14 120-13 A13 123-5 El(b) 126-9 Al'l 120-14 A13 123-6 El(b) 126-10 A3 120-15 A13 124-1 G1 126-11 E3 120-16 A14 124-2 Il 126-12 12 120-17 A17 124-3 E2 126-13 E3 120-18 A19 124-4 A17 127-1 11 120-19 A19 124-5 El(b) 127-2 El(b) 120-20 A20 124-6 A14 127-3 A14 121-1 Q2 124-7 El(b) 127-4 A3 121-2 A8 124-8 El 127-5 A19 121-3 E2
- 124-9 El(b) 127-6 II 121-4 L3 124-10 E2 127-7 L3 [
121-5 El(b) 124-11 Il 128-1 Al 121-6 El 125-1 E3 128-2 A2 121-7 E2 125-2 E3 128-3 A3 121-8 AIS 125-3 A14 128-4 A4
! 121-9 E2 125-4 A14 128-5 AL 121-10 T1 125-5 E2 128-6 A7(a) 121-11 11 125-6 E3 128-7 ,
A8 l
122-1 51 125-7 E3 128-8 A9 122-2 A14 125-8 E3 '128-9 All 125 9 A14 128-10 A14 122-3 H1 125-10 A14 128-11 A15 122-4 A3 I
l
\
l
. I
-105- i
. I coment Resolved By coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 128-12 A16 131-2 A2 132-19 e. A17 128-13 A17 131-3 A3 132-20 A18 128-14 A18 131-4 A4 132-21 A19 128-15 A19 131-5 A5 132-22 A20 128-16 A20 131-6 A7(a) 132-23 A19 129-1 E3 131-7 A8 133-1 11 129-2 El(b) 131-8 E3 133-2 El(b) 129-3 A16 131-9 A9 133-3 E2 129-4 A16 131-10 All 133-4 E2
. 129 5 E3 131-11 A14 133-5 El(b) 130-1 T1 131-12 A15(a) 133-6 Al 130-2 E3 131-13 A16 133-7 A17 130-3 Al 131-14 A17 133-8 El(b) 130-4 L3 131-15 A18 133-9 A3 130-5 A1 131-16 A20 133-10 A2 130-6 A2 132-1 El 133-11 A3 130-7 A4 132-2 El 133-12 A4 130-8 A5 132-3 A1 133-13 A5 130 9 A5 132-4 A2 133-14 A6 130-10 A7(a) 132-5 A3 133-15 'A7(b) 130-11 A8
- 132-6 A4 133-16 A8 ;
130-12 A9 112-7 A5 133-17 All i 130-13 A12 132-8 11 133-18 A12 130-14 132-9 133-19 A13 A7(a) A13 130-15 A14 132-10 A8 133-20 A14 130-16 A16 132-11 A9 133-21 A15(a) 130-17 A17 132-12 A10 133-22 A16 130-18 A18 132-13 All 133-23 A17 130-19 A18 132-14 A12 133-24 , A19 130-20 A19 132-15 A13 133-25 A19 130-21 A20 132-16 A14 133-26 A20 <
i 130-22 A2 132-17 A15 133-27 A8 l
131-1 Al 132-18 A16 133-28 E3 l
i l
1 l l
106- -
Comment Resolved By Comment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 133-29 El 134-29 A20 138-9 A'17 133-31 D1 134-30 El(a) 138-10
- El(b) 133-32 03 135-1 Il 138-11 A3 133-33 D3 135-2 El(b) 138-12 El(b) 133-34 D3 135-3 Q2 138-13 P2 134-1 F1 135-4 El 138-14 El 134-2 G1 135-5 A14 138-15 El 134-3 Il 135-6 A17 138-16 L1 134-4 El 135-7 A17 138-17 D3 134-5 E3 135-8 E2 138-18 E3 134-6 El 135-9 El(b) 139-19 A1 134-7 Al 136-1 Il 138-20 A2 134-8 A3 136-2 E3 138-21 A2 134-9 A4 136-3 Al 138-22 A3 134-10 AS 136-4 L3 138-23 A4 134-11 A6 136-5 A14 138-24 A5
'134-12 A7(a) 136-6 A17 138-25 A6 134-13 A8 136-7 A16 138-26 A7(a) 134-14 A9 136-8 Il 138-27 A8 134-15 A10 137-1 Il 138-28 A9 134-16 All 137-2 A13 138-29 A10
- 134-17 A12 137-3 El 138-30 All [
134-18 A13 137-4 E3 138-31 A12 134-19 A14 137-5 A14 138-32 A13 134-20 A15(a) 137-6 A8 138-33 A14 134-21 A16 138-1 E3 138-34 A15(a) 134-22 A16 138-2 NS 138-35 A15(a) 134-23 A16 138-3 P1 138-36 A16 134-24 A16 138-4 El(b) 138-37 ,
A16 134-25 A17 138-5 El 138-38 A16 134-26 A18 138-6 A14 138-39 A16 134-27 A19 138-7 L3 138-40 A17 134-28 A19 138 8 N1 138 41 E3
-107- ,
i i
l Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved 8y Coment Resolved By e
138-42 A18 141-5 Al 141-38 -
E3 138-43 A18 141-6 A19 141-39 E3 138-44 A18 141-7 Al 141-40 04 138-45 A18 141-8 Al 141-41 D4 138-46 A19 141-9 Al 141-42 04 138-47 A20 141-10 A2 141-43 A8 138-48 N2 141-11 A2 141-44 A8 139-1 A4 141-12 A3 141-45 7A ;
139-2 A4 141-13 A5 142-1 E3
' 139-3 A4 141-14 A6 142-2 El(b) 139-4 A4 141-15 A8 142-3 El 139-5 Al 141-16 A8 142-4 E3 139-6 A4 141-17 A8 142-5 A17 139-7 A4 141-18 A9 142-6 A14 139-8 AS 141-19 A10 142-7 A14 139-9 A5 141-20 All 142-8 A16 139-10 A13 141-21 A12 142-9 El 140-1 T1 141-22 A13 142-10 Il 140-2 Il 141-23 A14 142-11 E3 >
140-3 El 141-24 A14 142-12 T1 141-25 A14 143-1 E3 ;
. 140-4 M1 143-2 E3 I a 140-5 El(b) 141-26 A15(a) 140-6 El(b) 141-27 A16 143 3 El(d) 140-7 A19 141-28 A14 143-4 E3 140-8 Al 141-29 A17 143-5 02 140-9 A2 141-30 A18 144-1 Q2 140-10 El(b) 141-31 A18 144-2 El 140-11 El 141-32 A18 144-3 E3 140-12 Il 141-33 A18 144-4 - El 141-1 A8 141-34 A19 144-5 El 141-2 E3 141-35 A19 144-6 Q2 141-3 11 141-36 A20 144-7 El 141-37 El 144-8 B1 141-4 A1
___,,_-..__,_m - -.
-108-Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 144-9 El 144-42 El(b) 144-75 E3 144-10 El 144-/3 El(b) 144-76 A8 144-11 A17 144-44 El(b) 144-77 AB 144-12 A14 144-45 El(b) 144-78 A8 144-13 E3 144-46 A16 144-79 A9 144-14 El(b) 144-47 A14 144-80 A9 144-15 El(b) 144-48 El 144-81 A10 144-16 El(b) 144-49 El 144-82 All 144-17 El 144-50 El 144-83 All 144-51 144-84 -
144-18 A19 A8 A12 144-19 M2 144-52 A9 144-85 A13 144-20 N3 144-53 Il 144-86 A14 144-21 A2 144-54 Al 144-87 A14 144-22 A19 144-55 A2 144-88 El 144-23 A3 144-56 A2 144-89 A14 144-24 N4 144-57 A14 144-90 A14
! 144-25 El 144-58 A2 144-91 A15(a) 144-26 A20 144-59 A3 144-92 A15(a) 144-27 A14 144-60 A3 144-93 A15(a) 144-28 A17 , 144-61 A17 144-94 A15(a)
. 144-29 A17 144-62 A3 144 95 A16 I
s 144-30 El 144-63 A3 144-96 A16 144-31 E3 144-64 A4 144-97 A16 144-32 A19 144-65 AS 144-98 A16 144-33 A14 144-66 AS 144-99 A14 144-34 El 144-67 A6 144-100 A17 ,
144-35 A17 144-68 A7(a) 144-101 A18 144-36 El 144-69 A ~. 144-102 El(b) 144-37 A19 144-70 Al 144 103 -
A18 144-38 A4 144-71 .A19 144-104 A19 144-39 A4 144-72 El(b) 144-105 A19 144-40 A19 144-73 E3 144-106 A20 144-41 A19 144-74 A14 145-1 El
-109-Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 145-2 El 146-25 A18 148-16 ?. El(d) 145-3 A14 146-26 A20 149-1 E2 145-4 A18 146-27 A20 -
149-2 A17 145-5 Al 146-28 A12 149-3 A8 145-6 A14 146-29 A16 149-4 A8 145-7 A19 146-30 A19 149-5 A7(a) 145-8 A2 147-1 Il 149-6 A4 145-9 AS 147-2 El 149-7 A14 145-10 A8 147-3 N5 149-8 A8 146-1 E3 147-4 N5 150-1 E3
- 146-2 E3 147-5 A8 150-2 A17 146-3 El 147-6 A16 150-3 A14 146-4 El 147-7 P1 150-4 A8 146-5 E3 147-8 El(b) 150-5 A8 146-6 A'17 147-9 A14 150-6 All 146-7 E3 147-10 A8 150-7 All 146-8 E3 147-11 A8 150-8 All 146-9 A17 147-12 11 150-9 All 146-10 El(d) 148-1 E3 150-10 A16 146-11 Al 148-2 E3 150-11 'A16
, 146-12 A1 148-3 El(b) 150-12 04 ;
, 146-13 Al 148-4 El(b) 150-13 04 i 146-14 A2 148-5 A17 150-14 D4 146-15 A3 148-6 A14 150-15 A8 146-16 A4 148-7 E3 150-16 A8 146-17 A5 148 8 El(b) 150-17 A16 146-18 K8 148-9 11 150-18 N5 146-19 AB 148-10 A1 150-19 A8 ;
146-20 A9 148 11 A2 150-20 . N5 l 146 21 All 148-12 A3 150-21 A19 146-22 A14 148-13 A4 150-22 A19 146-23 A16 148-14 A7(a) 150-23 A19 l 146-24 A17 148-15 A8 150-24 A19
I .
l -110-i Comment Resolved By Coment Resc1ved By Comment Resolved By 150-25 A19 150-58 A19 151-10 e. A3 150-26 A19 150-59 A2 151-11 A4 ,
150-27 A19 150-60 A2 151-12 A8 150-28 A14 150-61 03 151-13 A5 150-29 A17 150-62 03 151-14 A6 150'30 A17 105-63 A19 151-15 A6 150-31 03 150-64 A19 151-16 A7(a) 150-32 El(b) 150-65 A19 151-17 A8 150-33 A19 150-66 A19 151-18 A9 150-34 A19 150-67 A19 151-19 A10 150-35 A19 150-68 A19 151-20 All 150-36 A19 150-69 A19 151-21 All 150-37 A19 150 70 A19 151-22 A12 150-38 A19 150-71 A19 151-23 A13 150-39 A19 150-72 A19 151-24 A14 150-40 A19 150-73 A19 151-25 A15(a) 150-41 Al 150-74 A19 151-26 A16 150-42 A2 150-75 A2 151-27 A17 150-43 A2 150-76 A2 151-28 A18 150-44 L1 150-77 A2 151-29 A19 150-45 El(b) 150-78 A16 151-30 A20 ,
[ 150-46 A17 150-79 El(d) 152-1 E3 i 150-47 NS 150-80 E3 152-2 A17 150-48 A19 150 81 X8 152-3 E2 150-49 A14 151-1 E3 152-4 A19 150-50 A17 151-2 A16 152-5 A19 150-51 A19 151-3 El 152-6 A19 150-52 AG 151-4 A14 152-7 A19 150-53 03 151-5 A17 152-8 . El 150-54 K7 151-6 E3 152-9 E3 150-55 03 151-7 11 152-10 A17 150 56 A19 151-8 Al 152-11 11 150 57 A14 151-9 A2 152 11. El
-111-Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 152-13 E3 153-8 L2 154-10 '. A2 152-14 Al 153-9 Al 154-11 A3 !
152-15 Al 153-10 A2 154-12 A4 152-16 Al 153-11 A3 154-13 'A6 152-17 A2 153-12 A4 154-14 A7(a) 152-18 A4 153-13 AS 154-15 A7(a) 152-19 A5 153-14 A7(a) 154-16 E3 152-20 A7(a) 153-15 A7(a) 154-17 A8 152-21 A8 153-16 A7(a) 154-18 A8
~
152-22 A8 153-17 A7(a) 154-19 A9 152-23 A9 153-18 A7(a) 154-20 A9 152-24 A10 153-19 A8 154-21 A10 152-25 All 153-20 Ad 154-22 All 152-26 A12 153 21 All 154-23 All 152-27 A13 153-22 A14 154-24 All 152-28 A14 153-23 A14 154-25 A13 152-29 A15 153-24 A14 154-26 A14 152-30 A16 153-25 A14 154-27 A15(a) 152-31 A16 153-26 A14 154 28 A16 ,
152-32 A17 153-27 A15(a) 154-29 A16 )
152-33 A18 153-28 A16 154-30 A16 ,
, 152-34 A19 153-29 A14 154-31 A17 i 152-35 A19 153-30 A17 154-32 A18 152-36 A19 153-31 A18 154-33 A18 152-37 A19 154-1 El 154-34 A18 152-38 A20 154-2 El(b) 154-35 A29 153-1 E3 154-3 A17 154-36 A19 153-2 11 154-4 A13 154-37 A20 153-3 E3 154-5 E3 154-38 . A12 4
153-4 A2 154-6 A8 155-1 E3 ;
153-5 A14 154-7 A8 155-2 A8 I j 153 6 A8 154-8 D2 155-3 A8 153-7 A8 154 9 Al 155-4 11 I
-112-Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 156-1 Il 157-5 K3 157-38 02 156-2 E3 157-6 K3 157-39 01 156-3 A17 157-7 X2 157-40 03 156-4 El(d) 157-8 11 157-41 03 156-5 E3 157-9 A16 157-42 El 156-6 Al 157-10 E3 157-43 El(b) l 156-7 Al 157-11 L1 157-44 El 153-8 A2 157-12 A17 157-45 E3 156-9 A3 157-13 E2 157-46 Il 15E-10 A4 157-14 E3 157-47 El(c) l '156-11 A5 157-15 El 157-48 E3 1
155-12 A6 157-16 All 157-49 A14 156-13 A7(a) 157-17 A16 157-50 A18 156-14 A8 157-18 A1 157-51 A1(a) 156-15 A8 157-19 A2 157.-52 A14 156-16 A8 157-20 A4 157-53 L2 156-17 A9 157-2i A6 157-54 L3 156-18 A10 157-22 A8 157-55 A8 156-19 A8 157-23 A9 157-56 11 156-20 A13 157-24 All 158-1 Il 156-21 A14 157-25 A12 158-2 J1 156-22 A15(a) 1.57-26 A13 158-3 A17
[
156-23 A1G 157-27 A14 158-4 U4 156-24 A17 157-28 A15(a) 158-A E3 156-25 A18 157-29 A16 1E" *. A17
- o t-26 A19 157-30 A17 1.. , A17 1 4-27 A19 157-31 A18 158-8 E3
's6 28 A19 157-32 A19 158-9 A14 156 29 A20 157-33 A20 158-10 A16 157-1 Il 157-34 El(a) 158-11 A16 157-2 E2 357-35 El 158-12 A16 157-3 E3 157-36 E3 158 13 N1 157-4 11 157-37 E3 158-14 A16
,. -113-Corpent Resolved Sy coment Resolved By Coment , Resolved By 158-15 El 158-48 All 159-5 ', c'5 l 158-16 A19 158-49 A12 159-6 All ,
158-17 A19 158-50 A12 159-7 A2 158-18 A19 158-51 A1 159-8 A2 158-19 E3 158-52 A13 159-9 A3 158-20 E3 158-53 A14 159-10 A4 ;
158-21 Il 158-5f' A14 159-11 A4
- if.";-22 E3 158-55 A14 159-12 A5 158-23 E3 158-56 A14 159-13 A6 5 158-24 Al 158-57 A14 159-14 A7(a) 158-25 A1 154-58 A15(a) 159-15 A7(a) 158-I6 Al 158-59 A16 150-16 A8 ,
, 158-27 A2 158-60 Al 159-17 A9 158-28 A2 158-61 A14 159 4 A10 154-29 A2 158-62 A17 159-19 All 158-30 A2 158-63 A18 159-20 All
< 158-31 A17 156-64 A18 159-21 A12 !
158-32 A2 158-65 A19 159-22 A13 i 158-33 A2 158-66 A20 159-23 A14 l j 158-54 A3 158-67 El(a) 159-24 'A15(a) ,
MS-35 El 158-68 El 159-25 A16 ;
, 158-36 El 158-69 E3 159 26 A16 [
158 37 A5 158-70 E3 159-27 A16 [
i 159-28 158-31 A6 156-71 04 A17 158-39 A7(a) 158-72 04 159-19 A17 !
i 158-40 A17 158-73 04 159 *,0 A18 i
158-41 A17 158 74 D1 159-31 A18 158-42 A7(a) h 75 A20 159-32 A19 -
1 158-43 A7(a) . W-76 Al 159-33 , (20
, 158-44 A8 ' 5* ^ 1 159-34 El(b) ;
158-45 A8 'e-E3 159-35 E2 156 46 A9 ?, Al 159-36 F3
- 152-47 A10 im A16 159-37 D2 i i
i 1 1
, . . - _ , . . , , _ - . . . . ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , , _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
-114-Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment _ Resolved By 15fe38 E3 161-4 El 162-11 ( E'1 15t-39 A15(a) 161-5 Al 162-12 Al 160-1 11 161-6 A2 162-13 A2 160-2 El 161-7 A3 162-14 A3 160-3 U1 161-8 A4 162-15 A4 160 4 A17 161-9 A5 162-16 A6 160-5 A14 161-10 A2 162-17 A7(a) 160-6 A16 161-11 A8 162-18 AP 160-7 Il 161-12 A9 162-19 A9
,160-8 Al 161-13 A10 162-20 Al 160-9 A2 161-14 All 162-21 All 160-10 A3 161-15 A12 162-22 A12 160-11 A4 161-16 A14 162-23 A14 160-12 A5 161-17 A15(a) 162-24 A15(a) 160-13 A6 161-18 A16 162-25 A16 160-14 A7(a) 161-19 A17 162-26 A17 160-15 A8 161-20 A18 162-27 A18 160-16 , A16 161-21 A19 102-28 A19 160-17 A9 161-22 A20 162-29 AM 160-18 A12 161-23 P2 162-30 A20 160-19 A13 ' 161-24 P2 163-1 E3
[16020 A34 161-25 N5 163-2 U1 [
160-21 A15(a) 161-26 11 163-3 A1 160-22 A16 162-1 A14 163-4 A2 160-23 A1A 162-2 El(b) 163-5 J1 160-24 A17 162-3 El(b) 163-6 A3 160-25 A18 162-4 El 163-7 A4
- 160 26 A19 162-5 K9 M3-8 A5 100-27 A19 162 6 El 163 9 ,
A6
? 100-28 A20 3.62-1 El(b) 163-10 A7(b) 161-1 V6 162-8 El(b) 163-11 A8 161-2 11 162-9 El(b) 163-12 A9 161-3 A17 162-10 El(b) 163-13 A10- !
,. -115-l l
l Comment Resolved By Comment Resolved By Comment Resolved Bv 163 14 All 164-21 A13 165-23
. A8 163-15 All 164-22 A14 165-24 A8 163-16 A12 164-23 A15(a) 165-25 A8 163-17 A13 164-24 A16 165-26 A8 163-18 A14 164-25 A16 165-27 A9 163-19 A14 164-26 A17 165-28 A13 163-20 All 164-27 A18 165-29 A14 163-21 A16 164-28 A18 165-30 A15(a) 363-22 A17 164-29 A18 165-31 A16 163-23 A18 164-30 A19 165-32 A16 163-24 A19 164-31 A20 165-33 A17 163-25 A20 165-1 11 165-34 A19 163-26 E3 165-2 J1 165-:15 A18 164 1 A2 165-3 U1 165-36 A18 164-2 Al 165 4 El 165-37 A18 i 164-3 Al 165-5 El 165-38 A19 l 164-4 Al 165-6 E2 165-39 A19 164-5 Al 165-7 El 165 a0 A20 164-6 A2 165-8 El 165-41 El 164-7 E3 16S-9 El 165 42 E2 t 164-8 A3
- 165-10 J1 165-43 E2 :
, 164-9 A3 165-11 A17 165 44 E2 [ ;
, 164-10 A4 165-12 A17 165-45 E3 164-11 A5 165-13 E3 165-46 E3 IG4-12 A7(a) 165-14 A17 165-47 03 164-13 A7(a) 165-15 A1 165-48 01 164-14 A8 165-16 Al 165 49 P2 164 15 A8 165-17 A2 165-50 El 164-16 A8 165-18 A3 165-51 . El(b) 164-17 A8 165-19 A3 165-52 A17 164-18 A9 165-20 A4 165-53 Il 164-19 A10 165 21 A8 165-54 A17 164-20 A12 165-22 A8 1E5-55 N7
-116-Coment Resolved By Comenj Resolved By Coment Resolved By 165-122
- 166-56 N7 165-89 V2 V1 165-57 A8 165-90 V2 165-123 V1 165-58 A8 165-91 V2 165-124 V1 165-59 A19 165-92 V2 165-125 V1 165-60 A3 16! 93 V2 165-126 V1 165-61 A17 165-94 V2 165-127 VI 165-62 A16 165 95 V1 165-128 V1 165-63 A16 165-96 V2 165-129 V2 165-64 A16 165-97 V3 165-130 VI 165-65 A16 165 98 V1 165-131 V1 165-66 A16 165-99 V1 165-132 V1 165-67 A16 165-100 V1 155-133 VI 165 68 V2 165-101 VI 165-134 V1 165-69 V2 165-102 V3 165-135 V1 165-70 V1 165-103 V2 165-136 A14 165-71 V3 165-104 V2 165-137 El(c) 165-72 V1 165-105 V1 165-138 El(c) 155-73 V5 165-106 V1 165-139 El 165-74 V4 165-107 V7 165-140 V1 i
165-75 V5 165-108 V1 165-141 A7(a) 165-142 A10 l 165-76 V4 . 165-109 V1 165-143 A16 165-77 Y2 165-110 V1
[
165-78 V2 165-111 V2 165-144 A12 [
165-79 V2 165-112 V2 165-145 A17 165 80 V1 ~/.5-113 V2 165-146 E2 165-81 V2 165-114 V1 165-147 E3
! 165-82 V2 165-115 V1 166-1 E2 165 83 V2 165-116 V1 166 2 C6 165-84 VI 165-117 VI 166-3 A19 165-118 V1 166-4 A19 165-85 Y1 i 165-86 V1 165-119 V1 166-5 E2 ,
i 165-87 V1 165-120 V2 166 6 A1
(
165 V2 165-121 V2 166-7 Al i
-117- ,
Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment htolvedBy 166-8 Al 166-41 A16 167-9 e A16 165-9 A2 166-42 A16 167-10 A16 166-10 A2 166-43 A16 167-11 A8 ,
166-11 A2 166-44 A17 167-12 A8 166-12 A17 166-45 A18 107-13 Al 166 13 A3 166-46 A18 167-14 A3 166-14 A3 166-47 A18 167-15 A4 ,
166-15 A3 166-48 A19 167-16 A5 166-16 A4 166-49 A19 167-17 Ab
. 166-17 A4 166-50 A20 167-18 A5 166-18 A4 166-51 A20 167-19 A7(a) 166-19 A5 166-52 El 167-20 A7(a) 166-20 A6 166-53 E2 167-21 A8 166-21 A7(a) 166 54 E2 167-22 A8 166-22 A8 166-55 E3 167-23 A9 166-23 A8 166-56 E3 167-24 A9 166-24 A8 166-57 03 167-25 All 166-25 A8 166-58 D'. 167-26 All 166-26 A8 166-59 P2 167-27 All 166-60 E2 167-28 ' A12 l 166-27 A8 '
A9
- 166-61 E3 167-29 A13 166-28 ,
] ,' 166-29 A9 166-62 A17 167-30 A14 [
166-30 A10 166-63 Il 167-31 A15(a) l 166-31 All 166-64 A16 167-32 A16 f 166-32 A8 166-65 A16 167-33 ~.7 ;
167-34 A18 166-33 All 167-1 Il i 167-2 El 167-35 A19 [
l 166-34 A12 167-36 A19 166 35 A13 167-3 A8 l 167-4 N5 167-37 A20 :
166-36 A13 ,
167-5 A17 167 38 A19 166-37 A14 167-6 A17 168-1 A15(a) 166-38 A14 166 39 A15(a) 167-7 A17 168-2 EJ f 167-8 U1 168-3 N8 166-40 Al?(a) i l
l
[
-118- ,
O Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved ev 168-4 El 171-10 Il 172-9 11
- 168-5 D1 171-11 Al 172-10
C2 168-6 E3 171-12 A2 172-11 Il 169-3 E3 171-13 A3 172-29 Al 169-2 A14 171-14 A4 173-1 Al 169-3 El(b) 171-15 A5 173-2 A2 169 4 El(b) 171-16 A7(a) 173-3 A3 169-5 E3 171-17 A8 173-4 A4 169-6 E3(b) 171-18 A9 173-5 A5 1 170-1 Il 171-19 All 173 6 A6 170-2 11 171-20 A12 173-7 A7(a) 170-3 A1 171-21 A13 173-8 A7(a) 170 4 A2 171-22 A14 173-9 A8
! 170-5 A4 171-23 A15(a) 173-10 A9 170-6 A5 171-24 A16 173-11 A10
- 170-7 El(b) 171-25 A16 173-12 All l 170-8 A8 171-26 A16 173-13 All 170-9 A9 171-27 A16 173-14 A16
- 170-10 A10 171-28 A16 173-15 A17 170-11 All 171-29 A17 173-16 A18 170-12 A17 , 171-30 A18 173-17 A12 170-13 A14 171-31 A19 173-18 A13
' 170-14 A16 171-32 AIS 173-19 A14
[
170-15 A18 171-33 Il 173-20 A15(a) 171-1 Il 171-34 A20 173-21 A19 171-2 All 172-1 E2 173 22 A20 171-3 N5 172-2 N5 174-1 Il 171-4 A16 172-3 N5 174-2 A2 171-5 El 172-4 A16 174-3 A3 171-6 53 172 5 A16 174-4 El 171-7 El(b) 172-6 A16 174-5 A5 171-8 A17 172-1 C2 174 6 A6 171-9 D1 172-8 A14 174-7' -
A7(a)
. . . _ _ . - = _ _ _ _. .
-119-i Comant Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 174-8 A7(a) 175-13 All 176-21 '
A19 ;
174-9 A17 175-14 A12 176-22 A19
< 174-10 AU 175-15 A13 176-23 A14 .
174-11 C7 175-16 A14 176-24 Il !
174-12 NS 175-17 A14 176 25 E3 j 174-13 A9 175-18 A15(a) 176-30 A1 174-14 A10 175-19 A16 176-31 A2 174-15 All 175-20 A17 176-32 E3 174-16 11 175-21 A18 176-33 A3
' 174-17 A13 175-22 A19 176-34 A4 ;
174-18 A14 175-23 A19 176-35 A5 174-19 A15(a) 175-24 A20 176-36 A6 174-20 A16 175-81 A4 176-37 A7(a) 174-21 11 176-1 A14 176-38 A7(a) i 174-22 A17 176-2 El 176-39 (3 174-23 A17 176-3 11 176-40 A8 174-24 A18 176-4 A16 176-41 A8 174-25 A18 176-5 A16 176-42 D2 l l 174-26 Als 176-6 Alt 176-83 All 174-27 A19 176-7 .A14 176-44 All 174-28 11 176 8 El(b) 176-45 A9 . !
[175-1 El 176-9 E3 176-46 A10 [ l 175-3 El 176-10 E3 176 47 All :
175-3 El(b) 176-11 A17 176-44 A16 ;
- 175-4 03 176-12 A17 176-49 A8 l 175-5 Al 176-13 All 176-50 All -.
175-6 A2 176-14 A9 176-51 A12 175-7 A3 176-15 11 176-52 A13 175-8 A4 176-16 El 176-53 ,
A14 175-9 A5 176-17 El 176-54 El l
175-10 176-18 A17 176-55 A14 A7(a) 175-11 A8 176 19 A17 176-56 A14 175-12 A9 176-20 A17 176-57 11 L
- . . _ - _ - - - . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _.,__._.__..._.,___.__._____m, _ . _
y__ .,_ , ___ _ _ . _-y-. - . -----
-120-Comment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Comment Resolved By 176-58 N9 176-91 J1 177-11 A6 176-59 11 176-92 J1 177-12 A7(a) 176-60 A15(a) 176 93 J1 177-13 A7(a) 176-61 A16 176-94 E6 177-14 A7(a) 176-62 A16 176-96 El(b) 177-15 A8 176-63 A16 176-97 El(b) 177-16 A9 176-64 A16 176-98 El(b) 177-17 All 176 65 A16 176-99 A8 177-18 A12 176-66 A17 176-100 A17 177-19 A13 176-67 A17 176-101 A8 177-20 A14 176-68 1
A17 176-102 A8 177-21 A15(a) 176-69 A18 176 103 E2(b) 177-22 A15(a) 176-70 A19 176-104 El 177-23 A16 176-71 A19 176-105 A17 177-24 A17 176-72 A19 176-106 E3 177-25 A17 176-73 A20 176-107 E3 177-26 A18 176-74 El 176-108 E2 177-27 A19 l 176-75 E2 176-109 El 177-28 A19 176-76 E2 176-110 All 177-29 A19 176-77 E3 176-111 A16 177-30 A20 176-78 El(b) , 176-112 El(b) 177-31 El(b) 176-79 D2 176-113 El(b) 178-1 H1
' 176-80 D3 176-114 E2 178-2 E2
[
176-81 C5 177-1 El(b) 178-3 El J
176-82 J1 177-2 Al 178-4 El 176-83 J1 177-3 A19 178-5 Al 176-84 J1 177-4 Al 178-6 A4 176-85 J1 177-5 A2 178-7 A6 176-86 J1 177-6 A2 178-8 A8 176-87 J1 177-7 A2 178-9 A3 176-68 J1 177-8 A3 178-10 A10 176-89 J1 177-9 A3 178-11 Al 176-90 J1 177-10 A4- 178-12 Al?.
121 Coment Resolved 8y Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved Bv 178-13 A15(a) 180-18 A7(a) 184-7 . E3
~
178-14 A16 180-19 A14 184-8 E3 178-15 A20 180-20 A8 184-9 El 17a.1 A16 180-21 A9 164-10 A14 179-2 C1 180-22 A9 184-11 A17 179-3 El 180-23 All 184-12 E3 179-4 El(b) 180-24 All 184-13 El(b) ,
179-5 El(b) 180-25 A12 184-14 E3 179-6 El(b) 180-26 A13 184-15 11 179-7 El(a) 180-27 A14 184-16 Al 179-8 04 180-28 A15(a) 184 17 A1 179-9 El(b) 180-29 A16 184-18 A2 179 10 A14 180-30 A17 184-19 A4 179-11 A16 180-31 A18 184-20 AS 179-12 E2 180-32 A18 184-21 A8 2 179-13 E2 180-33 A19 184 22 A9 l
180-1 11 180-34 A19 184-23 All 180-2 El 180-35 A20 184-24 A12 180-3 E3 180-36 E2 184-25 A14 180-4 A17 180-37 E3 184-26 A18 180-5 E3 180-38 D2 184-27 A3 180-6 Al 182-1 Il 184-28 A20 [
180-7 A1 183-1 Il 185-1 E3 1
180-8 A2 183-2 E2 185-2 El(b) 180-9 A2 183-3 Il 185-3 E2 l , ;
i 180-10 A2 183 4 V6 185-4 A16 i l 180-11 A2 183-5 Il 175-5 A16 180-12 A2 184 1 E3 185-6 A16 40-13 A3 184-2 11 185-7 A16 180 14 A4 184-3 11 185-8 A16 ,
180-15 A5 184-4 All 185-9 E3 180-16 A7(a) 184 5 All 186-1 A16 180-17 A7(a) 184-6 A16 186-2 El i
l i
. y g.- =-
o Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Come_nt Resolved By 186-3 E3 186-36 A10 188-20 A14 186-4 A14 186-37 All 148-21 ,
A16 186-5 ,
A17 186 38 All 188-22 A17 186-6 El(b) 183-39 A12 188-23 A18 186-7 E3 186-40 A13 188-24 A19 186-8 A14 186-41 A14 188-25 A20 186-9 A19 186 42 A15(a) 18926 A19 186-10 E3 186-43 A16 188-27 A19 186-11 A17 186-44 A17 189-1 El(b) 186-12 A17 186-45 A18 189-2 A14 186-13 E3 186-46 A19 190-1 E3 '
186-14 All 186-47 A20 190-2 E2 186-15 A16 186 48 A17 190-3 E3 186-16 E3 186-49 11 190-4 E3 186-17 Al 188-1 V2 190-5 E3 186-18 A1- 188 2 El 191-1 El 186-19 Al 188-3 El(b) 191-2 E3 186-20 A2 188-4 E3 191-3 El(d) 186-21 A2 188-5 11 191-4 L2 186-22 A2 188-6 Al 191-5 04 186-23 A2 , 188-7 A2 191-6 N6
, AA-24 A3 188-8 A3 191-7 N6 .
I s 186-25 A4 188-9 A4 191-8 N6 186-26 A5 188-10 A4 191-9 N6 186-27 A5 188-11 A5 191-10 N6 186-28 A6 188 12 A7(a) 191-11 N6 186-29 A17 188-13 A7(a) 151 12 N6 186-30 A7(a) 188-14 A7(c) 191-13 El 188-15 A8 191-14 01 186-31 A8 186-32 A8 188-16 A9 191-15 -
El 188-17 All 19'.-36 A8 186-33 A8 186-34 A8 188 18 A12 191-17 El(d) 184-35 A9 168-19 A13 191-18 El(d) 3
-123-e l
l coment Resolved By coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 191-19 All 191 53 A14 192-25 '. U2 191-20 All 191-54 A15(a) 192-26 A14 191-21 All 191 55 A16 192-27 A17 191-22 P3 191-56 A37 192-28 El 191 23 El 191-57 A18 192-29 E3 191-24 El 191-58 A19 193-1 02 191-25 A1(a) 191-59 A20 193 2 C7 191-26 A13 191-60 A20 193-3 D1 191-27 L2 191-61 L2 193-4 C7
.191-28 A1(a) 192-1 Al 193-5 C7 191-29 A1(a) 392-2 A1 193 6 C7 191-30 #2(a) 192-3 Al 193-7 E3 191-31 , A3 192-4 A2 193-3 A14 191-32 El 192-5 A2 193-9 E3 191-33 A3 192 6 A2 193-10 A14 191-34 A4 192-7 A3 193-11 A9 191-35 N1 192-8 A4 193-12 03 131-36 A5 192-9 A5 193-13 03 191-37 A6 192-i0 A7(a) 193-14 .A16 191-38 A7(a) 192-11 A7(a) 193-15 NS 191-39 A8
- 192-12 A8 193-16 E3
[191-40 A9 192-13 A9 194-1 11 [
191-41 A9 192-14 All 194-2 El 191-42 A10 192-15 A12 194-3 A14 191-43 All 192-16 A13 194-4 A14 191-45 A12 192-17 A14 194-5 El 191-46 A13 192-18 A15(a) 194-6 11 191-47 A13 192-19 A16 195-1 N5 191-48 A13 192-20 A17 195-2 , i3 191-49 A13 192-21 A18 195-3 E3 191-50 A13 192-22 A19 195-4 E3 191-51 A14 192 23 A20 195-5 A19 191-52 A14 192-24 U2 195-6 A19 i
-124- ,
Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By 195-7 Al 196-11 A13 196-44 A19 195-8 Al 196-12 "
A13 196-45 A20 195-9 A2 196-13 E3 196 46 A16 195-10 A2 196-14 E3 197-1 Il 195-11 A3 196-15 Al 197-2 E3 195-1.' A4 196-16 A2 197-3 A14 195-13 A5 196-17 A3 197-4 E3 l
195-14 A7(a) 196-18 A4 197-5 Al 195-15 A8 196 19 A5 197-6 C1 ,
195-16 A9 196-20 A5 197 7 A1 195-17 A10 156-21 A5 197-8 Al ;
195-18 All 196 22 A6 197-9 A1 !
195-19 A12 196-23 A7(a) 197-10 Al 195-20 A13 196-24 A7(a) L7-11 Al 195-21, A14 196-25 A7(a) 197-12 A2 195-22 A14 196-26 A7(a) 107-13 A2 195-23 A14 196-27 A7(a) 197-14 A2 195-24 A15(a) 196-28 A7(a) 197-15 A3 195-25 A15(a) 196-29 A8 197-16 A3 195-26 A16 196-30 A9 197-17 A3 i 195-27 A17 , 196-31 A10 197-18 A3 l 195-28 A18 196-32 All 197-19 A4 -
s 195-29 A19 196-33 A12 197-20 A4 196-1 11 196-34 A13 197-21 A5 196-2 E3 196-35 A14 197-22 A7(a) 196-3 A16 196-36 A14 197 23 A7(a) 196 4 E3 196-37 A14 197-24 A8 196-5 El(b) 196-38 A15(a) 197-25 A9 196-5 El(b) 196-39 A16 197-26 All 196-7 A19 196-40 A17 197-27 A12 196-8 El(d) 196-41 A1B 197-28 A12 196-9 A19 196-42 A18 197-29 A12 196-10 A14 196-43 A19 197-30 A13
,7- - - . - . - . . - - . - . . - . - . - - . - - - - - - - - . . . . - . , _ . , - , - - - - - _ _ . . . - - - - - - - -.
o
. -125-Coment Resolved By Comment Resolved By Coment _R_esolved By 197-31 A13 198-8 All 199-5 e A5 197-32 A14 198-9 N5 199-6 A7(a) 197-33 A15(a) 198-10 E3 199-7 A7(a) 197-34 A16 198-11 NS 199 8 E3 197-35 A16 198-12 P2 199-9 A8 197-36 A16 198-13 A1 199-10 A8 197-37 A17 198-14 A2 199-11 A9 197-38 A17 198-15 A3 199 12 A10 197-39 A17 198-16 A4 199-13 All 197-40 A18 198-17 A4 199-14 All 197-41 A18 198-18 A6 199-15 A12 197 42 , A19 198-19 A7(a) 199-16 A13 197-43 A19 198-20 A8 199-17 A14 197-44 A20 198-21 A9 199-18 A15(a) 197-45 ,El 198-22 All 199-19 A16 197-46 E2 198-2. A12 199 20 A17 197-47 E2 198-24 A13 199-21 A18 197-48 E3 198-25 A14 199-22 A19 197-49 D4 198-26 A15(a) 199-23 A20 197-50 D3 198-27 A16 202-1 11
- 197-51 D3 . IM-28 A17 202-2 E3 ;
197-52 D1 198-29 All 202-3 197-53 C1 IM-30 E1
[
A19 202-4 A1 ,
197-54 D3 198-31 A20 202-5 C8 (
j 197-55 All 198-32 E3 202-6 A3 !
197-56 All 198-33 El 202 7 A4
- 198-1 Il 198-34 A3 202-8 A5 194 2 E3 198-35 A19 202-9
(
A6 i
'**-3 El 198-36 E3 202-10 A7(a) l 4 A17 199 1 Al 202 11 A8 !
1M-5 El(b) 199 2 A2 202-12 A8 l
l 198-6 AIS 199-3 A3 202-13 A9 f
198-7 N5 199-4 A4 202 14 A10
[
I
, , - - - - - - - -----,,,,-.,---,-------_--,,---------n , , - - _ , - - , - - . . , , - - . . , - , - - , - . . . , , , , . - - - , , , - - - - - - - . - - , - , . - - - - . - ,
Coment Resolved By Coment Resolved By Comment Resolved By i
202-15 All 205-1 E3 207-3 A8 202-16 A12 205-2 El 207-4 i C3 202-17 A13 205-3 D1 208-1 E1 !
202-18 A14 205-4 D1 208-2 A8 202-19 A15(a) 206-1 E3 208-3 V2 ;
202-20 A16 206-2 A8 209-1 Al 202-21 A17 206-3 El 209-2 A2 202-22 A18 206-4 E3 209-3 A3 202-23 A19 206 5 Al 209-4 A4 ,
202 24 A19 206-6 A2 209-5 A5
.202-25 A20 206-7 A3 209-E A7(a) 203-1 E' 206 8 A3 209 7 A8 203-2 E3 206-9 A4 209-8 A9 203-3 A14 206-10 A5 209-9 All 203 4 A14 206-11 A6 209-10 A12 203-5 E3 206-12 A7(a) 209-11 A13 l 203-6 A14 206-13 A8 209-12 A14 203-7 A16 206-14 A9 209-13 A15(a) l 203 8 A16 206-15 All 209-14 A16 203-9 A16 206-16 A12 209-15 A17 203-10 A16 . 206-17 A13 209-16 A18 203-11 206-18 A14 209-17 A19 l
A16
[
l 8
203-12 Il 206 19 A15(a) 209-18 A19 203-13 E3 206-20 A16 209-19 A20 l
l 204-1 E3 206-21 A17 209-20 El 2 04-2 A6 206-22 A18 209 21 02 1 204-3 E3 206-23 A19 210-1 E3 204-4 A16 206-24 A20 210-2 E3 204-5 El(d) 206-25 E3 210-3 El(b) 204-6 E3 206-26 El 210-4 A14 204-7 E3 205-27 A19 210-5 A14 i 204 8 C6 207-1 C3 210-6 El(b) 204-9 E3 207-2 Al 210-7 All' 210-8 A16
~
tv \
~
o 1 .
o . .
.y7 o
Coment Resolved By e
210-9 A8 -
210-10 E3 e
4 e
9
- e a
.