ML20198G617
| ML20198G617 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/30/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| ACRS-2378, NUDOCS 8605290701 | |
| Download: ML20198G617 (21) | |
Text
hC05-23'7@
i PDR 05102L
.~
3@,j l EY T 7 Yl
}
3 f
~,
CERTIFIED COPY h,O ISSUED: January 30, 1986 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
AND MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN FACTORS WASHINGTON, D.C.
Purpose:
The ACRS Subcommittee on Human Factors met on November 25-26, 1985 at 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20555 in Room 1046.
The purpose of the meeting was to complete the review of current reactor operator requalification procedures, and to initiate review of proposed final rulemaking on 10 CFR Parts 55,
" Operators' Licenses" and 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" and the three related Regulatory Guides 1.134: " Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants"; 1.149, " Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Examinations"; and 1.8,
" Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants".
Notice of the meeting, published in the Federal Register on Friday, November 1, 1985, is reproduced and shown as Attachment A.
The schedule for the meeting is Attachment B.
Sign-in sheets of meeting attendees are contained in Attachment C.
Attachment D
)
contains a list of meeting handouts kept with the office copy of these minutes.
The entire meeting was open to the public.
There were no oral or written commente from members of the public.
Mr.
John Schiffgens was the assigned ACRS Staff member for the meeting.
Attendees:
ACRS NRC Staff D. A. Ward, Chairman B. Boger, NRR/DHFT F. J. Remick, Member S. Shankman, NRR/DHFT C. Michelson, Member J. Wachtel, NRR/DHFT C. J. Wylie, Member J. J. Persensky, NRR/DHFT
~
K. Gimmy, Consultant J. Hannon, NRR/DHFT
- J. O. Schiffgens, Staff R. Eaton, NRR/DHFT 8605290701 860130 LESICHID ORIGINAL 8
PDR Certified By N
L
t 000 bW PDR 0510%
.~
"'p ElE 7p hg
..j
- ,j g
'b I 01 U MN CERTIFIED COPY b
ISSUED: January 30, 1986 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
AND HINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN FACTORS WASHINGTON, D.C.
Puroose:
The ACRS Subcommittee on Human Factors met on November 25-26, 1985 at 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington D.C. 20555 in Room 1046.
The purpose of the meeting was to complete the review of current reactor operator requalification procedures, and to initiate review of proposed final rulemaking on 10 CFR Parts 55,
" Operators' Licenses" and 50, " Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities" and the three related Regulatory Guides 1.134: " Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants"; 1.149, " Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Examinations"; and 1.8,
" Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants".
Notice of the meeting, published in the Federal Register on Friday, November 1, 1985, is reproduced and shown as Attachment A.
i The schedule for the meeting is Attachment B.
Sign-in sheets of l
meeting attendees are contained in Attachment C.
Attachment D I
contains a list of meeting handouts kept with the office copy of these minutes.
The entire meeting was open to the public.
There were no oral or written comments from members of the public.
Mr.
John Schiffgens was the assigned ACRS Staff member for the meeting.
i I
Attendees:
ACRS NRC Staff D. A. Ward, Chairman B. Boger, NRR/DHFT F. J. Remick, Member S. Sharkman, NRR/DHFT C. Michelson, Member J. Wachtel, NRR/DHFT C. J. Wylie,* Member J. J. Persensky, NRR/DHFT
^
K. Gimmy, Consultant J. Hannon, NRR/DHFT :
J. O. Schiffgens, Staff R. Eaton, NRR/DHFT F
' 8605290701 860130 LE3ICNATED ORIGINAL PDit ACRS o 78 PDR b
Certified By i
-f j
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES i
Others T. C. Houghton, KMC F. Stetson, NUS L. S. Watson, Bechtel D. Airoso, McGraw-Hill J. Nurmi, QATEL J. Frosch Meetina Hinblights. Anreements. and Reauests:
Monday, November 25, 1985 1.
Opening Statement D. Ward Mr. Ward made a brief statement on the purpose of the meeting and mentioned that the Subcommittee had held two or three meetings over the past year to gather information on reactor operator requalification programs.
He said that for the first two and a half-hours of the meeting the Subcommittee would discuss this information and that although the NRC Staff was present to answer particular questions they had not been asked to make a presentation.
He pointed out that the Committee owed the Commissioners and the Staff a report on the topic.
Mr. Michelson asked the Staff if they were prepared to discuss the problems that have surfaced with regard to the Crystal River requalification program.
Mr. Boger said that 3
the Staff was prepared.
i 2.
Subcommittee Discussion of Operator Requalification i
Procedures Mr. Remich began by asking the Staff if, given that the proposed 10 CFR Part 55 rule changes are adopted, they would continue to administer requalification examinations to 20 Percent of the operators at 50 percent of the facilities per year.
Mr. Boger responded that they would.
Mr. Remick commented that in his view there is no question that the concept of requalification training and the overall philosophy are good, although annual examinations can sometimes be traumatic.
He pointed out that requalification training is more than just course work, it is getting experience on the simulator, being brought up to date on facility changes, and going through the plant to maintain famili~arity with the plant.
He thought that many of the difficulties that have come up are due to the NRC Staff involvement in the administration of the annual examinations.
Mr. Michelson wondered if there wasn't An inordinate amount of retraining and requalification in the nuclear industry _
2
8 1
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES compared to other high-impact industries.
Mr. Ward questioned whether the purpose of requalification is to assure the general competence of a professional or to protect the public against individual charlatans.
Mr. Wylie wondered why the NRC does not just audit to see that'the program has been implemented and is being properly administered.
Mr. Remick addressed the concern of many with regard to how much, if any, theory should be on requalification examinations.
He indicated that some theory, even on performance based examinations, is appropriate.
As an example of an appropriate question he gave the following:
"What is.the approximate melting point of UO27" Noting that it is a matter of judgment and that some might disagree, he pointed out that operators needed to know this during the TMI accident.
Mr. Ward remarked that if requalification training and examinations are based only on the job task, analysis then i
that puts the burden on the job task analysis to be accurate and complete.
He added that it is not sufficient for the job task analysis to 'just deal with what the operator does every day.
What he needs training in and, hence, examination on is the rare things that he almost never encounters.
Mr. Wylie said that the TMI operators could have benefitted by a better knowledge of pumps; namely, that centrifugal Pumps can't over-pressure a system.
Mr. Ward reminded everyone that some of the current requalification requirements stem directly from the fact that some of the THI people on shift didn't understand the steam tables.
Mr.
Michelson thought that many of the questions he had seen went will beyond "useful" theoretical information into areas of calculation that an operator is not likely to use.
Mr. Wylie wondered if some fundamental theoretical questions were appropriate for the initial examination but not for the requalification examination.
Mr. Ward was troubled by the argument that an operator might need to know certain things at the time he qualifies for the original license that he doesn't need to retain and, hence, be reexamined on as part of the requalification program.
i Mr. Remick said that he would like operators to be professionals, to be inquisitive, to be eager to learn new t h i n g s a n d t o w a n t t o b e c r o s s - t r a i n e d,~ a s w e l l a s.tus w e l l trained for their day-to-day tasks.
Mr. Michelson said that he did not think that this description fit many operators, who are generally only'high school graduates, and that a different selection process would be required to obtain such People.
v 3
'~
i HUMAN FACTORS MEETING i
PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 Mr. Gimmy said that comments made by some operators was that NRC or NRC-consultant examiners tend to ask the book-type theory questions because they are easier to ask and grade, and that operators spend far too much of their time getting ready for the book-type questions.
Mr. Remich said that he thought the whole concept of the annual requalification examination was to identify those areas where all of a facilities operators or various individuals were weak so as to make appropriate adjustments in the requalification training program to correct the deficiencies.
What concerned him was that the emphasis seems to have changed to that of " boning up to pass and examination".
Mr. Michelson asked the Staff what happens to an individual, in terms of allowable duties, if he fails to pass the examination.
Mr. Boger said that they are to do whatever their NRC approved requalification program stipulates.
In general, it depends on the degree of failure.
If it looks like a small deficiency the Staff typically allows somebody else to give an oral examination to see if the individual has sufficient knowledge to remain on shift.
If it is a big deficiency, based on a written examination, the person is taken off shift until they have had time to review the material and be reexamined.
Mr. Boger reminded the Subcommittee that the Staff selects plants which are to receive NRC administered requalification examinations based on what seems to be going on at the plant; i.e.,
based on SALP inputs, resident inspectors' comments, recent events, and LERs.
They try to focus on programmatic problems rather than individual problems.
However, if the examination uncovers a weakness in a particular operator, it is the responsibility of the NRC to see that that person receives additional training and reassessment.
Mr. Ward said that he thought that the original intent was to use the examination to identify program weaknesses without concluding anything about individual performances, and that that seems to have changed.
Mr. Boger reiterated that when the NRC identifies a deficiency in a licensed operator, the Staff must assure itself that the person still has the minimum level of knowledge or competence to hold a license.
Mr. Remick noted that a commonly held industry opinion is that you have to first teach people to pass an NRC j
examination and then teach them to operate the plant.
i
~
Mr. $1chelson asked the Staff to tell the Subcommittee about their evaluation of the Crystal River requalification program.
Mr. Boger said that a high percentage of the Crystal River operators who sat for recent NRC administered and utility administered requalification examinations failed.
4
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES As a result, the NRC Staff had several meetings with the management of the facility.
A facility conducted evaluation identified four major program deficiencies:
a) Inefficient and inadequate management review of the training progrtm; b)
Training and administrative procedures with vague and unclear requirements; c) Insufficient indoctrination and training of training department personnel; and d) Inadequate methods of showing compliance with NRC requirements.
Mr. Michelson wondered what happened to the Crystal River operators between the time they were qualified by the initial examination and the time they were attempting to be requalified.
Mr. Boger responded that although all the operators had to have passed the initial examination, he did not know how many times some of them may have taken the examination before passing it.
He said that the Staff found that people were allowed to slip through the program without going to some of the requalification program lectures, and that the requalification program did not keep up to date on plant changes.
Mr. Michelson asked about what areas the operators were weak in.
Mr. Boger replied that there appeared to be an overall weakness, i.e.,
across all categories.
Mr. Remick wondered why IE didn't catch the fact that people were not attending requalification lectures.
Mr.
Boger said that deficiency was identified before the examination and was one of the reasons the NRC decided to administer some of the requalification examinations at j
Crystal River.
I i
Mr. Ward wondered why it was necessary for the NRC to administer examinations if it audits requalification programs and utilities' requalification examinations.
Mr. Boger said that it is a means of getting management attention and the examination can also verify a suspected problem, as well as pick up a problem that the audit misses.
Mr. Michelson asked if NRC examinations had actually identified problems in programs that were thought to be good based on an audit.
Mr.
Boger said that he thought that there were cases where they had.
Mr. Michelson asked if Crystal River's program was INPO accredited.
Mr. Boger said no.
Mr. Remick mentioned that the Japanese requalification requirements consist of two days of lectures, mostly on law and regulations, and a corresponding examination.
There are no other examinations; the company, however, does provide 1
simulator training.
He said that although a college degree 1
is not required for a license, the Japanese point out that it is difficult to get a license if you don't have one.
l Mr. Ward asked if the NRC Staff had any interest in qualifying groups.
Mr. Boger said no, although they do have activities related to team training.
1 5
=
l e
i l
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING l
NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/HINUTES With regard to the impact of regionalization on requalification, Mr. Boger seemed to think that, in addition to making it easier to attract qualified examiners, it allows for people more familiar the plant's details to contribute to evaluation of the plant's requalification program.
The disadvantage is that there are five different groups giving l
examinations, so there may sometimes be undesired variations among the Regions, and perhaps some inconsistency in j
judgments.
With regard to the effect of requalification on engineering j
expertise on-shift, Mr. Michelson commented that while it was i
clear to him that requalification training increased operator competence, it was not clear that it increased engineering l
knowledge.
He said that he didn't think this kind of training provided the background that a graduate engineer might have, and added that he didn't thing it was necessary 3
to have graduate engineers running plants.
Mr. Wylie expressed concern over instances of misuse of STAS.
He said that in some cases utilities are bringing in junior level engineers, giving them some training, and assigning them to the position instead of going to some of their experienced, well trained, technically competent operators.
}
He wonders if anyone will listen to these STAS in an emergency.
i i
Mr. Wylie asked the NRC Staff if it has been working with NUMARC on the check operator concept in an effort to develop a trial program.
Mr. Boger said that Staff has had a couple discussions with NUMARC but that NUMARC has not yet come back to the Commission to propose a program.
3.
Review of Proposed Final Rule on 10 CFR Part 55 B. Boger, S. Shankman, and J. Wachtel 1
)
Mr. Boger began with brief history of the operator licensing i
program changes beginning with the training and examination j
type package proposed in SECY 84-76 up to the final rule 1
being reviewed by the Subcommittee, which took into i
consideration over 1600 public comments, regional input, and l
the Commission. Policy Statement on Training and Qualification (March 1985).
He said that the objectives of the rulemaking were to a) improve the safety of nuclear power plant operations by making sure that the operators are better qualified, b) improve the basis for licensing examinations l
and' operating tests by making sure that the examinations and the use of simulators and simulation devices reflect the i
operator's job, and c) respond to Public Law 97-425 - Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 - Section 306, which required the NRC to establish regulations or other appropriate guidelines j
1 6
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING l
NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 PROPOSED SUMHARY/ MINUTES in the area of operator training, qualification, and examination (particularly, simulator examination).
i Ms. Shankman quickly went over the General Provisions and Exemptions described in the proposed rule.
Ms. Shankman said that the biennial medical examinations remained part of the Medical Requirements.
In addition she said that now the NRC is asking the facility to certify that the candidate, applicant, or operator has been examined by a licensed medical practitioner and meets the standards in the l
ANSI standard and where they do not, the NRC asks for medical ygp documentation.
With regard to incapacitation, the NRC only wants to be notified if the incapacitation is for longer than 30 days, and then it wants documentation prior to the return i
of the operator to active duty to Justify the return based on medical evidence.
1 lj With regard to Applications, the proposed rule basically says that if an applicant has completed an NRC approved training i
program that uses a simulation facility acceptable to the NRC l
that the NRC will then administer an appropriate licensing I
examination and operating test.
l For the Written Examination and Operating Tests the proposed i
rule, in the interim, would use the NRC catalog of important knowledges and abilities for operators.
As information 4
becomes available from facilities on their systematic analyses of job requirements, and as learning objectives become established and training programs become accredited, the NRC will use the learning objectives in the examinations i
and tests it administers.
The Staff is already training the NRC examiners on how to transform facility learning j
objectives into testing objectives and questions.
Ms.
Shankman pointed out that the major problem is to keep the i
test from getting in the way of testing, i.e.,
of showing I
what quality you are testing (you don't want a test that tests test-taking).
1 Mr. Wachtel said that according to the proposed rule, the operating test would be performed in a plant walk-through and within the simulation facility, which is essentially a continuation of present policy.
At present, the NRC does not i
require a simulator or a simulation facility, nor does the j
NRC_have specifications for those simulators that may be used for conducting operating tests.
Now, at a plant without a simulator, the NRC may merely expand the scope of the walk-through portion of the operating test; at a plant with a simulator, the NRC essentially takes the utility's word for the fact that their simulator is of sufficient fidelity to represent the plant for the purposes of conducting tests.
According to the proposed rule, a simulator or simulation facility would be required, and the simulator itself would 7
~. - - -
~ _,.. - -
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 have to meet certain requirements before it would be accepted by the NRC for use in conducting operating tests.
i Mr. Wachtel said that the rule has been written to encourage j
the use of the industry standard ANSI /ANS 3.5, but that itS explicitly permits the use of other types of simulators which, for whatever reason, may not meet the industry i
standard.
The NRC proposes to accept the utility's initial and annual recurrent certification that they have a simulator that is a plant specific device that meets ANSI /ANS 3.5.
The rule would allow one year for a utility to either submit a certification for an ANSI /ANS 3.5 type facility or submit a Plan under which it will develop an alternative simulation I
device.
The NRC would allow a four year grace period for i
every utility to have in place an accepted or approved simulation facility.
The application for a non-ANSI /ANS 3.5 simulation facility would include a complete description of the facility, the components it contains and a description of how those components would be used in conducting an operating test, and i
i documentation of the performance tests conducted, and test results, to insure the acceptability of the simulation facility.
The NRC would also require an annual report i
stating that the simulation facility continues to meet the standards established for it and that the four year cycle of I
performance tests will essentially be refreshed every four j
years.
I i
Ms. Shankman explained that there has been an NRC requirement I
as a condition of the license to actively perform the duties I
or functions of a licensed operator.
Furthermore, the current requalification requirements say that the individual licensee is to be actively and extensiyely engaged as an operator.
To clarify matters, the proposed rule includes the following definition: " Actively performing the functions of an operator or senior operator means that an individual takes responsibility for and carries out a position of the shift
}
crew that requires the individual to be licensed as defined i
in the facility's technical specifications."
The rule I
further states that the individual must be " actively performing the functions" of an operator for a minimum of three shifts per calendar quarter, i.e.,
24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> in 3 months, to maintain his status as an active licensed RO or SRO.
As a condition of the license, the proposed rule would require the utility to notify the NRC of any change in j
status, including permanent reassignment.
- l
.+
l Most of the comments from the public were on Requalification.
j The proposed rule requires that the requalification program j
cycle be no less than 12 months and no greater than 24 months.
Also, the written examination is to be given biennially, but that it is to be comprehensive, while the 8
~
m
= = =_;g HUMAN FACTORS MEETING NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES operating test is to remain annual.
The operating test for requalification is to be similar to the initial operating test, without Category 1 questions (which have the theoretical ~ emphasis).
The biennial written examination is to be very similar to the initial examination drawn from the same job task analysis and learning objectives.
The proposed j
rule allows for the. substitution of the results of the
" systems approach to training".for the old delineated program i
content.
The " systems approach to training" means a training program that includes the following elements: a) a systematic analysis of the jobs to be performed, b) learning objectives derived from the systematic analysis which described desired i
i performance after training, c) training design and 4
implementation based on the learning objectives, d) evaluation of trainee mastery of the objectives during 1
training, and e) evaluation and revision of the training j
based on the performance of trained personnel in the job i
setting.
i Mr. Remick pointed out to the Staff that nowhere in Part 50 does the NRC require licensees to have training programs.
l They are required to have requalification programs but not training programs.
They all do have such programs; in fact, l
the NRC requires them to describe their programs in their j
Mr. Remick recommended that the Staff take this opportunity, while making changes in the rule, to
- 8 correct the omission and explicitly write-in the requirement.
i l
4.
Executive Session i
The Subcommittee continued its discussion of operator i
requalification procedures, outlined a report for the December ACRS meeting, and worked on a draft letter for l
Committee consideration.
Tuesday, November 26, 1985 5.
Regulatory Guide 1.134 S. Shankman 1
Hs. Shankman began her description of Regulatory Guide 1.134 by saying that it basically endorses the industry standard ANSI /ANS 3.4.
She mentioned that if an individual has a license condition, and the condition is "no solo", that the other qualified person in the control room need not have the same -license; i.e.,
the other qualified person may be an RO
)
or an SRO.
A "no solo" condition means that the individual may not be the only one responsible for the operation of the reactor.
For example, individuals with a condition that could also cause.them to lose consciousness, like epilepsy or diabetes, but have the condition under control-so that there a
9
8 o
i HUMAN FACTORS MEETING l
NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES is only the outside chance that they could lose consciousness-l or. lose the ability to make sound judgment, would have their i
licenses medically conditioned and the condition would be "no l
solo".
l Mr. Ward wondered why the regulation is needed since i
regulations already exist which do not permit a lone j
individual in the control room.
Ms. Shankman thought the Regulatory Guide might apply to areas other than the the l
control room.
Mr. Michelson wondered if the Staff had adequately considered what might happen if such an individual collapsed over the control board.
Ms. Shankman said the utility and utility i
doctors, and the NRC and medical consultants all must agree j
that operational problems are not likely.
6.
Regulatory Guide 1.143 J. Wachtel i
Mr. Wachtel began by stating that Regulatory Guide 1.143 i
i j
endorses ANSI /ANS 3.5 (1985) with exceptions.
He pointed out that it provides a) a four year phased implementation period, t
b) a specific listing of abnormal / emergency events to be i
tested for on the simulator to verify performance, and c) i guidelines for facility licensees who wish to use one i
simulation facility for more than one unit.
i According to Mr. Wachtel, when the rule refers to a j
simulation facility it means an ANSI /ANS 3.5 type plant reference, high fidelity simulator.
He pointed out that there are many other simulation devices available, such as part-task simulators, concept trainers, engineering trainers, mockups, etc., that could, in some combination, be proposed l
by some plant with a control room that is not represented j
adequately by an ANSI /ANS 3.5 type simulator.
Mr. Gimmy j
asked if the rule endorses the part of the standard that says the plant reference simulator has to'be kept up to date.
Mr.
j Boger said that it did, and noted that the standard allows a j
year to identify changes and another year to implement them.
il Mr. Wachtel listed the major exceptions that Regulatory Guide j
1.149 takes to the ANSI /ANS 3.5:
a)
The rule and Regulatory Guide 1.149 apply to operating i
tests and not (specifically) to training.
b)
.Although the standard is intended to apply only to full scope simulators, because of the NRC policy to encourage utilities ~(who might otherwise seek an outright i
exemption to the rule) to find some way to provide some simulator capability, the NRC endorses the standard also with respect to simulation devices other than strictly 10
.._~
i HUMAN FACTORS MEETING PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 full scope, high fidelity simulators, including the
- part-task and limited-scope devices.
c)
The standard has two appendices covering optional procedures,.one deals with how to conduct performance tests to document the capability of the simulator, and the other deals with operability testing (i.e., testing to exercise key components of the simulator under normal and transient condition).
The NRC does not consider the appendices optional but rather part of the standard, d)
The definition of " Reference Plant" also applies to a
" Unit".
e)
The NRC requires that performance testing be performed uniformly over a four year cycle, with 25 percent of the tests performed each year, in accordance with a list of tests in the Regulatory Guide.
Mr. Michelson asked how the NRC determines when a performance test is passed; i.e.,
what are the results compared with.
Mr. Wachtel responded that an NRC contractor, Microanalysis and Design, was given a one year contract, with a 6 month optional extension, last September to develop an evaluation program for ANSI /ANS 3.5 type simulators.
Mr. Wachtel mentioned that over the past year the number of existing ANSI /ANS 3.5 type simulators increased from 26 to 38, the number under construction decreased from 33 to 28, and the number being considered for purchase decreased from 16 to 8.
The number of facilities that have no plans for simulators decreased from 19 to 13.
7.
Regulatory Guide 1.8 J. Persensky Mr. Persensky began by saying that Regulatory Guide 1.8 endorses ANSI /ANS 3.1 - 1981 only for the ROs, SROs, and Shift Supervisors; the NRC maintains its endorsement of ANS 18.1 - 1971 for all other positions.
Hence, there are two different guidelines for STAS, one for licensed operators and one for the other positions.
The Regulatory Guide incorporates the recently published policy statement on engineering expertise on shift, which allows the-dual role position provided certain educational and training requirements are satisfied, and is limited by the policy statement on training and qualifications.
Mr. Persensky pointed out that the educational requirements in the 1981 standard which have received a lot of discussion over the past 5 years, 60 and 30 college credit hours for the shift supervisor (SS) and the senior reactor operator (SRO),
respectively, are not endorsed by this Regulatory Guide; i.e.,
the educational requirement for SS and SRO is to be 11 J
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 i
limited to a high school diploma.
He also mentioned some other exceptions, clarifications, and additions concerning licensed operators:
The power plant experience for an SRO is to be increased from 3 to 4 years.
At least 6 months of the 2 years of nuclear power plant experience for an SRO l
applicant should be at the plant for which the applicant is i
~
seeking a license.
SRO applicants, without a degree in i
engineering or its equivalent, should have held an operator's i
license and been actively performing licensed duties for at
{
1 east 1 year.
Training in the control.and mitigation of accidents in which the core is severely damaged is to be j
added.
Also three months on shift as an extra person in the
}
position for which the license is sought (RO or SRO) is to be l
required.
j With regard to positions other than licensed operators, Mr.
j Persensky mentioned some exceptions and additions to the NRC endorsement of ANSI N18.1
.1971:
An STA will be required on all shifts and should assume an active role in shift j
activities.
The STA should have a bachelor's degree in i
engineering or a related science.
]
be combined if provisions of the policy statement on j
engineering expertise on shift are met.
B.
8.
10 CFR Part 55 - INPO Accreditation Program Interface I
Boger Mr. Boger said that underlying the whole rulemaking package i
is the intent to approve programs that have been accredited by INPO.
That does not mean that the NRC would not unapprove L
)
particular programs if, during the course of evaluation of them, it was found that they were not being implemented in i
accordance with the guidelines of the accredited programs.
l Mr. Ward asked if, although the NRC Staff will continue to audit programs, it will accept INPO Accreditation as prima t
facie evidence that the program should be approved.
Mr.
Boger said that that was correct.
Mr. Boger said that one of the big issues is eligibility.
If l
an accredited program truly is performance based, then the i
output from that program should be someone who is qualified to hold the' job.
In recognition of this, the Staff intends j
to propose eliminating NRC eligibility requirements to sit for an NRC examination if the facility certifies that the j
candidate has completed an INPO accredited program that makes i
use of a simulation facility approved by the NRC, and certifies that' medical requirements are satisfied.
However.
}
the Staff intends to continue to audit programs, and audit j
and administer examinations and tests.
9.
Executive Session 12
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 PROPOSED
SUMMARY
/ MINUTES The Subcommittee continued its discussion of the proposed rule.and supporting Regulatory Guides, outlined a report for the December ACRS meeting, and worked on a draft letter for Committee consideration.
Future _ Meetings:
The ACRS is scheduled to discuss both operator requalification, and the proposed final rulemaking on 10 CFR 55, with the three related Regulatory Guides, during its 308th meeting, December 5-7, 1985.
NOTE:
Additional meeting details can be obtained from a transcript of this meeting available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.,
or can be purchased from ACE-Federal Reporters, 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C.
10001 (202) 347-3700.
i I
13
{
4580s Federal Register / Vol. 50, Nr. 212 / Friday November 1.19es / Notices d staffla its review of applications for
. (5 U.S.C. saa(aD
- John Schiffgens (telephone 302/834-y permits andlicenses.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this aeth day 1414) between 8:15 a.m.and 5100 p.an..
[
De draft, temporarily identified by Its of October tees.
Persons lanning to attend this meeting
sk number, SC 901-4 (which should be For the Nuclear Regulatory 'h=h=6=
are to contact the above named ttioned in all correspondenca yWencie F.Gulespie, indivi al one or two days before the
.cerning this draft guide), is proposed phector. Dirision offtisk Analysis and scheduled meeting to be advised of any 6
movision 1 to Regulatory Guide 5.62, and operariana office o/MiclearJiagulosary changes in schedule, ect., which may.
.t is entitled Reporting of Physical Jte.earch have occurred.
Security Events." he guide provides na [FR Doc 86-4813e Ftled 10 41-48; 8.48 an)
Deted: Ochber 38,1888.
rpproach acceptable to the NRC staff sa m e oces m oes.a N
y,,,,,w,i m a for determinine when and how a
/
Miam#Ereces/wDuwde@W e;
safeguarda event should be reported, g Does safeguards events are those that Advloory Committee on Reactor threaten nuclear activities or lessen the Sefoguards; Sutpoommittee on Human (M Doc, emas Med m M aml effectiveness of a security system.
Factors; Meeting
- 8888***"
%fs draft guide and the associated value/ impact statement are being issued He ACRS Subcammittee on Humaa to involve the public in the early stages Factors will hold a meeting on OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES of the development of a regulatory November 25 and 26,1965. Room 1046' TRADE REPRESENTATIVE 1
position in this area.Dey have not 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC received complete staff review and do
%e entire meeting will be open to.
Notlee of USTR Pub 5c Hearing on not represent an official NRC staff public attendance.
Poesit>1e U.S. Actione in Response to -
J poeldon.
De agenda for subject meeting shall
- w Quanutedve Restriceone C
Public comments are being solicited be as follows:Mondoy, November 25, bleintained t>y Ww Government of a
on both drafts, the guide (including any 1985-11:00 o.m. until the conclus/on of. Japan on importe of 1.senwr and implementation schedule) and the draft bus /nessi 7besday, November al,1985-i.eether Footwear 5
value/ impact statement. Comments on
&JOa.m. untilthe ccaclus/on of y
a the draft value/ impact statement should bus / ness.
susesWutv:%1s publication givu notice y
be accompanied by supporting data.
De Subcommittee will complete its that the OfBee of the United Statee y
Written comments may be submitted review of current reactor operator Trade Representative (USTR)in i
6 the Rules and Procedures Branch, requalification procedures and initiate conformity with section 304(b) of the 4
Division of Rules and Records. Office of review of proposed final rulemaking on
'nade Act of1974, as amended (19 Administration. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 10 CPR Part 155 and three related U.S.C 2414(b)), will conduct a hearing Commission, Washington. DC 20555, Regulatory Culdes.
on possible U.S. actions in responn to Comments may also be delivered to.
Ural statements may be presented by the quantitative restrictions maintained members of the public with the by the Government of[ span on imports
(
1m 4000, Maryland National Bankg7735 Old Georgetown Road, concurrence of the Subcommittee ofleather and leather footwear.
1 Maryland from 8:15 a.m. to Chairman; written statements will be g, y,yg, 320 p.m. Monday through Friday. Copies accepted and made availaHe to the 4
of comments received may be avamined Committee. Recordings will be permitted In conformity with section 304(b) of ct the NRC Public Document Room.1717 only during those portions of the the Trade Act of1974, as amended (18 H Street NW., Washington, DC meeting when a transcript is being kept, U.S.C 2414(b)(1)), the Office of the Comments will be most helpfulif and questions may be asked only by USTR has scheduled a hearing for received by December 31,1965.
members of b Subcommittu,its November 1s,less, to provide the Although a time limit is given far consultants, and Staff. Persons.lestring opportunity for pub!!c commants on: (1) comments on hw drafts, comments to make oral statements should notify A roposed U.S. action in the form of P
and suggestions in connection with (1) the ACRS staff member named below as increased duties or import restrictions items for inclusion in guides currently far in advance as is practicable so that on certain products from Japan (listed in being developed or (2) improvements in ap ro riste arrangements can be made. - Section 4 of this notice); and (2) a all published guides are encouraged at the initial portion of the proposal offered by the Leather any time, meeting, the Subcommittee, along with Industries of America,Inc. to restrict the Regulatory guides are available for any of its consultants who may be exportation of U.S. hides to Japan. Such inspection at the Comminion's Public present, msy exchange prelkninary comments will be considered by USTR Document Room,1717 H Street NW.,
views regarding matters to be in advising the Pruident with respect to Washington, DC Requests for single considered during the balance of the his decielon to use his authority under copies of draft guides (which may be meeting.
section 301 of the Trade Act of1974, as
. reproduced) or for placement on an De Subcommittee will then heat amended (19 U.S.C 2411) to take a:tomatic distribution list for single presentations by and hold discussions counter measures against Japan if no copies of future draft guidea la speciac Cvisions should be made in writing to
.with representatives of the NRC Staff, satisfactory settlement has been its consultants, and obr interested reached in the japan leabr and leather the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory persons regarding this review.
. footwear cases by December 1. tees.
~ '
Commission. Washington, DC 20ssa, Further information regarding topice Interested parties are invited to submit Attention: Director. Dtvision of to be discussed, whebt the meeting comments on these proposals. Interveted i
i Technical!nformation and Documsat has been cancelled or rescheduled, the parties are also requested to include in Control. Telephone requests cannot be.
Chairman's ruling on requests for the their comments on blist of poselble accosamodated. Regulatory guides are ;, opportunity to present oral statemente retallation items, an analysis of: (1) ne not copyrighted, and Comualsalon
. and the time allotted therefor can be degree to which import restrictions or approvalle not required to reproduce ; obtained by a prepaid telephone call to increased duties will encourage the
'% k.!.,W.k. e n. %. p
.p the cognizant ACRS staff member, Mr, Japanese to remove theirleather and ATTACllMENT ^
o
. ',. ~. -
~
s e
g
__ s o.- = _ __.. -
~~
~
p November 7, 1985 REVISION 1
PRDPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN FACTORS November 25, 1985 11:OOam Opening Statements D.
Ward 10 min 11:10 Subcommittee Discussion of B.
Boger Operator Requalification et al.
Procedures NRC Staff will be present to offer clarification and respond to Members questions 140 1:30pm LUNCH 60 l
2:30 Review Final Rule on 10 CFR Part 55 180 Introduction B.
Boger a) General Provisions S.
Shankman b) Exemptions c) Medical Requirements d) Appl i ca ti ons e) Written Examinations and Operating Tests Contents written RO exams '
Contents written SRO exams Contents operating tests Implementations operating tests J. Wachtel f) Licenses Conditions S.
Shankman Expiration Renewal Requalification requirements program requirements g) Modification and Revoca-tion of Licenses a
h) Enforcement ATTACHMENT B
B
. n --- -:
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING g
Nov mber 7, 1985 CCHEDULE NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 REVISION 1
Review Revision to 10 CFR Part 50 S.
Shankman 3
5:30 BREAK 15 5:45 Executive Session 90 a) Prepare Report for December ACRS meeting b) Draft Letter for Committee consideration 7:15 ADJOURN November 26, 1985 8:30am Regulatory Guide 1.134 S.
Shankman 30 min 9:00 Regulatory Guide 1.149 J. Wachtel 75 10:15 BREAK 15 10:30 Regulatory Guido 1.8 J. Persensky 90 12:00 Discussion of 10 CFR 55 -
INPO Accreditation Program Interface (how do they i
complement each other) 30 12:30 BREAK 15 12:45 Executive Session a) Prepare Report for December ACRS meeting b) Draft Letter for l
Committee consideration 75
'2 OOpm ADJOURN 1
9 a -,
HUMAN FACT 0RS ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON LOCATION ROOM 1046 DATE NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILIATION
{kb hhe_.
uN%
wc F. 1,:, I 4ge3 d4 1 o.11.,&Tw n
0.
(ha I. O n
a lls/L e lin, NwJ
~
). Ybb s N/, 8 a
<l knnnnngn dit C /DNF T N $6f f E/AC /DW7~
J JJkr/ Met JXc /Dffr~~
1 \\akrA wru h+,.
.). J. 0nway upc /opry-TC- % 9 kb5s b'M t.
LS is a k 6al kl S A/u /Af}
0nTdL
- f. $7E7YDU N // S 4.4 P s
ATTACHMENT C
\\
ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON HUMAN
')RS LOCATIO1:
ROOM 1046 DATE:
NOVEMBE
- 26. 1985 V
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
NAME BADGE N0.
AFFILIATION Y\\t d t(o n $ h lO or n G - C'110 ace Fed n ti Stpor herT
/<'m L. <saar v
&9os ik90ivr Sa-vd faut f G UOdw '
L o 141 ha oOe n b,i A Hein o GC 1S')
(24 rin l
ok/b-kl7d7/)
2 69 (0 bb, [dw -lbl'{
i ~ WmL k~.
G-Mi i m <_.
5~ 96 6 % F,J e i.M R +,-%
n an. mse c an
/ h/,/.
/)#7xr-P-g
$" @ff Mo672w - /N //_
e t
l e ens l
l, p
" ACRS SU8 COMMITTEE MEETING ON HUMAN F A C T_0 R S LOCATIO:1:
ROOM 1046
~
DATE:
NOVEMBER 25 1985 V
ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:
l l
NAME BADGE NO.
AFFILIATION
!O t/ A///sM l fD9O T
$117~2l l-S 'wa f <;v <
t o%T 13n Ihl K' /. S/MJ:V ioABI Ou!o/./? [dwuSfSYh Ae-< le.h-ed O. dcf[N G o 9 u c1
-r C (4on L Lw 6 ~ 0$ Y KM c t~ T 9/ 67XCH f - 6<109 Arpts igj,e/o
~
\\
j)kVtb A t2o a, E-a 2 5 C Afc Grw- /b//
- cceo,n h e c.
6 -@Y7 scLP u
s I
f I
e I
i -
i o
g 0
f -)
l
. o. s ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON NUMAN FACT 0RS LOCATION ROOM 1046 DATE NOVE!1BER 25-26,1985 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT:NAME AFFILI ATION f,
T>. A.
ul~) /th jleA s 14~L e f s iL. ', /c
- a. at.,A & n'
<t
' )., /,c C,
(x u
d
& ina
~
'c l.
?CS$t~ r Wd
+
- 53. I3a9eb
~
M2/2/49FI/648 tl da,nn McAlb Hf c /DL 6 h kNwa Ma\\wvs.\\cv3, S L Ln-ex/Mes /oa ll. EnleJ A/RA?diFS/hLg i
J
... +
ATTACHMENT D ACRS HUMAN FACTORS SUBCOMMITTEE NOVEMBER 25-26, 1985 MEETING WASHINGTON, D. C.
List of Meeting Handouts A.
Final Revisions to 10CFR55, B. Boger, S. Shankman, J. Wachtel, Operator Licensing Br., Human Factors Safety B.
Regulatory Guide 1.149, J. Wachtel, Operator Licensing Branch, Human Factors Safety C.
Regulatory Guide 1.134, S. Shankman D.
American National Stm dard Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, i
S. Shankman E.
ANS-3.5 Working Group, Final Draft Revision, American National l
Standard, Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training i
F.
American National Standard for Selection, Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants G.
Regulatory Guide 1.8, Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants, J. J. Persensky H.
9 55.47, Waiver of examination and test requirements.
n m.
m