ML20203N010
| ML20203N010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/25/1986 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| References | |
| RTR-REGGD-01.114, RTR-REGGD-1.114 ACRS-2443, NUDOCS 8609230038 | |
| Download: ML20203N010 (17) | |
Text
,?
06fS-a M3 CERTIFIED COPY f-ffSb DATE ISSUED: JULY 25, 1986,,3
+p"a W
']
j .t hg 4 Bh il N NkW D
.y PROPOSED
SUMMARY
AND MINUTES OF THE JULY 15, 1986 MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN FACTORS Eurport; The ACRS Subcommittee on Human Factors met on July 15, 1986 at 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20555 in Room 1046. The goals of the meeting were to a) review SECY-86-153, " Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel", b) review SECY-86-70, (Advanced Notice of) " Proposed Rulemaking: Degree Requirements for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants", c) be briefed on SECY-85-288, "NRC's Approach to Training Evaluation Based on the Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel", and SECY-86-119, " Annual Status Report on Implementation of the Commission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification" and d) review the proposed Regulatory Guide 1.114, Revision 2, " Guidance to Operators at the Controls and Senior Operators in the Control Room of a Nuclear Power Unit".
Notice of the meeting, published in the Federal Register on July 2, 1986, is 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 i;
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.
Attendees:
ACES NRC Staff.
F. J. Remick, Subc. Chairman J. Partlow, IE D. A. Ward, Member P. McKee, IE/ORPB G. A. Reed, Member R. Rosano, IE/ORPB i
l J. C. Ebersole, Member L. Bush, IE/ORPB
[ C. J. Wylie, Member G. West, NRR/DHFT j G. Brown, Fellow J. J. Buzy, NRR/DHFT H. Alderman, Staff D. S. Morisseau, NRR/DHFT J. O. Schiffgens, Staff M. L. Roe, NRR/DHFT J. L. Koontz, NRR/DHFT D1hers J. J. Persensky, NRR/DHFT K. Arn, Bechtel DESIGRATED ORIGINAL
,- a
( i+'
Certified By 8609230038 860725 _ _ _ . .
July 25, 1986 l Y
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING fi MINUTES - JULY 15, 1986 .
Others Others . . ,
J. M. Griffin, AP&L M R. E. Fuller, NUS ~~
R. Boyd, KMC J. F. Colvin, INPO '
J. Nurmi, QATEL P. F. Riehm, KMC w
- - ~. -
Maeling Highlishis. Aareements. and Recu'ests:
- l. Opening Statement -
F. Remick Mr. Remich began by commenting briefly on the purpose of the mee. ting . Then, referencing the August 9, 1983 ACRS letter on the Rule concerning Fitness for Duty of NPP personnel, he asked the Staff to address the question of the need for a Fitness for Duty program for NRC Staff (with unescorted access to " protected areas" in NPPs) sometime during its Presentation on the Fitness for Duty issue.
- 2. Policy Statement on Fitness for Duty -
J. Partlow and L.
Bush Mr. Partlow began by pointing out that the Commission has already adopted a policy statement on Fitness for Duty (essentially what was proposed in SECY-86-153) which is to be effective immediately; however, comments by those concerned are encouraged and are to be gathered and evaluated by the Staff. He said that it is an 18 month trial policy, noting that national policy is still emerging on such subjects as drug testing and rehabilitation programs.
Mr. Partlow said that it is his understanding that the NEC intends to have its own Fitness for Duty program. He said that the Office of Administration has developed a very preliminary draft outlining such a program and is circulating if for comments at the office director level. It considers a hierarchy for testing going from those with the most frequent need for access to those with least frequent need (i.e., from resident inspectors to regional inspectors to headquarters people). Mr. Remick asked if work on the NRC program was initiated at the request of the Commission. Mr. Partlow said that it was initiated by the Staff.
Mr. Bush emphasized that current programs are not etched in stone, they will be evaluated during the trial period, and at the end of the 18 months appropriate adjustments will be made. Mr. Ebersole asked what criteria the Staff intendsMr. Bush to use to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs.
said that the Staff sees a program as a series of sieves intended to prevent drug and alcohol related problems by a) refusing employment to abusers, b) encouraging abusers to report themselves to the utility, c) encouraging family or 2 -
I
July 25, 1986
., HUMAN FACTORS MEETING I MINUTES - JULY 15, 1986 peers to report them to the utility, d) encouraging -
supervisors to report them, and, finally, e) NRC investigations of allegations. A program would not be -
considered successful if even a few NRC investigations were 3,' .
required. Mr. Partlow added that he thought a program woul be considered successful if a) the utility program had all ,y.,
the basic elements from the EEI Guide, b) if the utility takes appropriate action (i.e., goes through the proper steps outlined in its program) when a problem is encountered, and c) the utility has an appropriate rehabilitation program in effect and that affected individuals go through it before beine returned to duty.
With regard to the "EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol /
Fitness for Duty Policy Development", Mr. Bush stated that it is not mandatory or prescriptive, and it is not a formal consensus standard, although it is regarded as an industry standard because the industry has said that it is going to use it to develop its programs. He discussed briefly the Guides 10 key program elements: a) a written policy (fundamental - needed for utility wide understanding of what is expected), b) top management support (involvement at this level is considered essential), c) policy communication (should generate enthusiastic support), d) behavioral observation training (primarily for supervisors, but some utilities provide it for operators and security guards), e) implementation training, f) union briefing (difficult to properly implement a program without union support), g) contrnetor notification (some contractors opt for the utility's program, others have their own), h) law enforcement liaison (especially needed for undercover investigations), i) chemical testing of body fluids (much debated - can take the form of pre-employment, periodic, random, and for cause testing), and j) employee assistance (to encourage self-referral, and referral and support by family and friends).
Mr. Ebersole asked how this approach differs from the FAA requirements for flight personnel. Mr. Partlow said that the FAA has not prescribed regulations on Fitness for Duty for pilots; e.g., there are no requirements for testing of I
l pilots. However, Mr. Remick pointed out that FAA safety l employees (e.g., Air Traffic Controllers) are screened for substance abuse during required annual physical examinations.
f Mr. Bush said that the EEI Guide does not include guidance on a) written procedures (sequence of actions to be taken when a problem is detected), b) employment screening (to weed out potentially habitual abusers), c) investigations (to react to I
allegations or uncovered information), d) searches (to look for drugs on site), e) chemical testing (i.e., no position is taken on what form testing should take), and f) confidential reporting.
i l
l 3 -
i i
_s.f l, HUMAN FACTORS MEETING July 25, 1986 MINUTES -
JULY 15, 1986 ..
Concerning chemical testing, Mr. Bush made some general observations. To avoid detection by a scheduled test, an. ?I abuser can refrain from taking drugs for a period before ;2.
test or take diuretics to flush his system. He noted thatt .j; 4
- .If a person smokes one marijuana cigarette it can be (,
~
detected in a urine test 3 cr 4 days later; a habitual user would have to abstain for as long as a month to avoid detection; and
- Cocaine is eliminated from the body in about 4 days; hence it may be difficult to detect a weekend abuser with suel. a test.
Mr. Remick asked if tests can detect marijuana in someone who was merely in the presence of marijuana smokers. Mr. Bush said thet such a person would probably not absorb enough. He said that preliminary screening tests should always be followed with more accurate confirmatory tests if the former (which tend to be biased toward false negative results) show positive results, anticipating pcssible court action.
Mr. Ebersole asked if there was a problem with defining competence in connection with abuse. Mr. Partlow responded that as far as the NRC is concerned it is a go/no-go situation; if one is caught possessing, selling, or buying drugs or shows positive on some kind of legitimate test he fails within this Policy and is to be removed from his position.
The Policy Statement, approved by the Commission on June 25, 1986, endorses the EEI Guide, but it is optional. Industry is expected to keep the Commission informed on the status of industry programs. The Staff plans on reviewing the INPO Status and Evaluation Reports, periodically observing INPO evaluations, and conducting 6 to 8 inspections out of NRC headquarters. Mr. Bush said that some of the things the Staff plans to do during inspections are a) review against the EEI Guide, b) interview supervisory personnel, c) interview employees, d) interview contractors, and e) follow a sample through the whole process.
Mr. Partlow emphasized that the Policy Statement is only for operating nuclear power plants. He noted, however, that the EEI Guide is for the entire electric generating industry.
The Rule concerning Fitness for Duty, SECY-83-339 A, was E reviewed by the ACRS in August of 1983 and approved by the N. % T Commission in 1984. After subsequent meetings with industry, ,
the Commission decided on a policy statement in lieu of a rule. Mr. Bush said that the Staff is preparing a withdrawal notice for the Rule that will accompany the notice of the Policy Statement in the Federal Register.
i 4 -
I July 25, 1988 l HUMAN FACTORS MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1986 l Mr. Remick asked the Staff what they planned to recommend to v the Commission concerning a Fitness for Duty policy for fuel' 'g.
cycle and nonpower reactor facilities. Mr. Partlow said *-
the Commission directed the Staff to look at the consequen Qh..
of personnel being unfit for duty throughout the licnesed 4~ . g. l sector. He said that the Staff is essentially looking at the-40v : 4 worst kind of design-basis accident that can occur by virtue l of human error, e.g., something like the Kerr-McGee Sequoyah !
accident last January, where failure to follow procedures resulted in the heating of a UF, cylinder and its rupture with a massive release of radioMetivity and the death of a man. The Staff is then to evaluate the costs and safety benefits associated with requiring Fitness for Duty programs.
He said that this study is not yet completed.
Mr. Remick asked the Staff for a synopsis of the INPO survey on Fitness for Duty. Mr. Partlow said that the Staff had not yet received a copy of the INPO report, but did have some of the statistics on chemical testing. Mr. Bush said that a) 41 of 45 respondents were doing pre-employment screening, b) 42 of 45 were doing testing for cause, and c) 27 of 45 were doing other testing (12 were doing or planning random testing). Mr. Colvin noted that not all 55 NUMARC utilities have operating nuclear power plants, but that prior to fuel load they will have programs in place.
- 3. NUMARC Comments on Fitness for Duty -
J. Griffin and J.
Colvin Mr. Griffin said that as part of the commitment through the NUMARC process, all utilities are committed to both pre-employment screening and testing for cause. NUMARC's only hesitancy is with regard to random sampling of employees l and contractors, due to the current controversy in terms of constitutional issues, l
After five months of data at AP&L, Mr. Griffin said that l
about 10 to 12 percent of the (1000) people given pre-employment tests test positive. He said that AP&L also has random testing in its program; about 10 percent of AP&L personnel and about 10 percent of contractor personnel are to be tested per year. Only two random tests have shown positive; both were caused by legal medication. Mr. Griffin pointed out, however, that random testing is considered primarily a deterrent. ,
D.R.
- 4. Degree Requirements for SRos at NPPs -
D. Jones and G. West Mr Jones said that after the THI accident, the Rogovin report recommended a individualThe with a degree NRC decided on to shift to permit an deal with abnormal conditions.
i i
5 -
s .sy,s. ]
a
- July 25, 1986 ? l
' HUMAN FACTORS MEETING -
MINUTES - JULY 15, 1986 j equivalency criteria to substitute for degree raquirements i engineering or related scientific discipline. Later, when ,J.
the question of the need for a individual with a degree on '(
shift came up, the NRC organized a peer panel to look at T.
operator qualifications. The panel wanted to make t-recommendations that would help prevent degradation of the ;[5 overall level of experience on-shift and in command of NPP m operations, enhance the technical capabilities of the crew on-shift, and enhance training of NPP operations personnel.
According to Mr. Jones, essentially, the findings of the panel were that a) a degree requirement may enhance public confidence, b) there is no unennizocal relationship between university degrees and job performance, c) analytical capabilities are required for some emergency events, and d) there are other factors related to the safety of NPP operations.
Mr. Jones discussed briefly the peer panel's recommendations that:
- The STA position should not be required;
- Assurance of appropriate engineering expertise should be implemented via creation of a " Shift Engineer";
- The NRC should be involved in the accreditation of utility training programs and their training staffs, as well as individuals successfully completing such programs; and
- The experience requirements for an SRO with a technical B.S. Degree should be less stringent than for an SRO without one.
To answer the question, "What kind cf educational requirements are needed if you want to go into an SRO or similar position?", Mr. Jones said that the NRC contracted PNL to assess the job related educational qualifications of NPP operators (NUREG/CR-4051). He said that the study identified Job _ content through job analysis, examined educational curricula (in particular, identified the content -
of college level engineering educational programs), and e, . 3 Mob hg l
systematically content. compared the encineerine orocrams toTheportiono involved considering the specific academic knowledge needed* , -
for operator positions, i.e., identifying an academic knowledges list (which, incidentally, turned out to be almost identical to the list from an independently conducted INPO study), based on the INFO job task analysis. The portion of 6 -
l
' July 25, 1986
' HUMAN FACTORS MEETING MINUTES - JULY 15, 1986 ,
I the study dealing with educational curricula involved examination of high school (engineering college preparatorff ~
h".
?>
courses, college of engineering core curriculum, and coll "'
upper level courses by major.
is $1 Mr. Jones said that the major findings of the PNL study are,' ;y a) close to 10 percent of the academic knowledges for operators on the job are covered in high school, b) approximately 65 percent of the academic knowledges are covered in college level engineering programs, and c) about 20 percent of the academic knowledges needed are not covered in high school or engineerina programs and, hence, need to be covered by plant training programs. He noted that 40 to 60 percent of the academic knowledges covered in college engineering curricula are not required on the (operatcrs) job. Mr. Ebersole wondered if there were any colleges attempting to provide the 20 to 25 percent knowledges not currently covered in high school or college engineering programs. Mr. Jones said that there are some; be mentioned a new program at Memphis State as an example.
Mr. Jones also mentioned another study conducted by PNL for the NRC (NUREG/CR-4411) to assess the special educational The study programs for licensed nuclear reactor operators.
-l
- looked at three kinds of educational programs: a) university
!! Programs, b) specialized two-year college or other limited degree engineering-type programs, and c) training at nuclear power plants. He said that the major conclusions of the l
'l study are a) the traditional B.S.N.E. degree programs are as job-relevant as the specialized educational programs, b) the non-degree course work grograms are most " efficient" because .
of their narrower focus, but they do not er ore of the
)
knowledges list than the other program tyi, , und c) approximately half or more of the academic knowledges list content remains to be covered outside of existing educational programs.
Mr. West summarized the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM): Degree Requirements for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants. He pointed out that the Rule would require that applicants for Senior Operator licenses, after January 1, 1991, hold a baccalaureate degree in engineering or physical science; other degrees would be accepted on a case-by-case basis, but that degree equivalency would be unacceptable. He said that the Rule would require that one
)
of the two years of nuclear power experience be " hot 74 experience", i.e., at a nuclear power plant operating at
[$g greater than 20 percent power. Senior Operators licensed *dk prior to January 1, 1991 would be grandfathered, however, .
only one reexamination would be allowed for applicants who apply just prior to January 1, 1991, to prevent a lot of People from trying to qualify just before the degree requirement becomes effective.
7 -
]' - _
4 HUMAN FACTORS MEETING July 25, 1986 i MINUTES -
JULY 15, 1986 l
Mr. West said that the Staff also plans to propose a policF -
statement that would be issued at the same time the Eule would be issued; it would go into the details of how utilities and owners' groups might encourage their senior -
operators to become degreed. _
Mr. West mentioned that, at the request of KMC, the commentb '
period for the ANPRM han been extended from July 29 to September 29, 1986 to allow KMC time to conduct in-depth studies and to develop statistical information relevant to the ANPRM. Mr. R =ick said that if a final rule on this issue is proposed, the Subcommittee will want to meet again with the Staff and, perhaps, ask EMC to make a presentation.
Mr. Reed said that he thought that such a rule would have a devastating negative effect on the continuity, stability, experience level, and expertise of the pool of senior operators.
Mr. Remick pointed out the January 1, 1991 effective date is not really sufficient time to allow operators now in training to satisfy degree requirements unless they start as full-time students sometime in the next six months.
With regard to the survey on engineering expertise on shift.
Mr. West reminded the Subcommittee that on February 13, 1986 i
the NRC issued Generic Letter 86-04 as a follow-up to the Commission Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift. The letter asked licensees about a) their current STA coverage program, b) their use of the equivalency criteria to a baccalaureate degree in engineering, and c) any plans for a future change to their current STA program.
Mr. West said that concerning current STA coverage, 3 plants are using option 1 only (combined SRO/STA), 81 are using option 2 only (separate STA), 20 are using a combination of options 1 and 2 (some shifts meet the criteria of option 1 and some do not), and 3 plants are using the combined STA/SRO option with individuals who have associate degrees in nuclear engineering technology (the Staff has not yet decided if these are acceptable). .
Concerning the degree equivalency required by utility Programs, Mr. West said that 53 plants clearly do not use any degree equivalency, while 54 may use a degree equivalency ,
criterion. According to NRC project managers and resident g inspectors, all STAS and SROs/ STAS at 52 of 66 plants have an)J engineering or physical science degree, while the remaining Y. ..
14 of 66 plants have at least i STA in the category of a degree equivalency to a baccalaureate degree in engineering or physical science. He said that 84 of 87 plants have a separate STA on chift and 3 of 87 have a separate STA on (essentially 10 minute) call.
-8 -
% ',: . L,h
. HUMAN FACTORS MEETING July 25, 1986 - -
MINUTES -
JULY 15, 1986 Mr. West said that concerning planned changes, 70 of 107 plants do not plan to make any change, 18 of 107 plants P j).\ '
to adopt option 1, and the remainder plan to change to various combinations of options 1 and 2. ,
a 3 .. a
~'
- 5. Proposed Regulatory Guide 1.114, Revision 2 -
G. West Mr. West stated that the Revision 2 to the Guide, " Guidance to Operators at the Controls and to Senior Operators in the Control Room of a Nuclear Power Unit", is to provide guidance on the staffing rule and bring the Guide into conformance with it. He pointed out that it provides some clarification on the boundaries of what is considered to be the control room, and says that the Senior Operator should be in sight of, or within the audible range of, the Operator at the controls or be within audible range of the control room annunciators.
The proposed revision to Regulatory Guide 1.114 would also involve a concurrent revision to the Standard Review Plan, Section 13.1.2, " Operating Organization".
- 6. NUMARC Comments on Degree Requirements -
J. Griffin and J.
Colvin Mr. Griffin said that the NUMARC Steering Committee met on June 9, 1986 and voted to form an additional working group to address the issue of degree requirements for senior operator applicants. The group is to be chaired by Charles Larson, Vice President of Nuclear Operations at Northern States Power Company.
The working group held their first meeting on July 8, 1986.
They tentatively plan to review the ANPRM and address the 20 questions that were included in the Federal Register. Mr.
Griffin said that they were shocked by the ANPRM, coming so soon after the Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift, since they thought their (major) effort addressed what they thought the NRC concerns were. They were also concerned that there may be an attempt to ratchet down degree requirements to the Reactor Operator level. They did not i
feel that there was anything in the job task analysis of the Senior Operator position to indicate that a degree, per se, is going to add a lot to an individuals ability to do that job. They were concerned about degrees making their SROs so -
j attractive to other segments of the industry (vendors and .
l l
contractors) that they would not be able to keep them. .
- 7. Implementation of Policy Statement on Training and Qualification - J. Persensky l
I
_ g _
l k
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING July 25, 1986 MINUTES -
JULY 15, 1986 (Mr. Remick chaired the meeting except during this discussion '
which was chaired by Mr. Ward due to Mr. Remick's involv '
?q.,
in the INPO accreditation process.) f-
, "3 '
Mr. Persensky said that there were two parts to the Staff's approach to evaluation of the implementation. One part was , . . f?.
to monitor INPO activities; observe the team visits, observe i the National Nuclear Accrediting Board, and review Self !
Evaluation Reports and Team Reports. The second part was an l independent NRC evaluation; this included evaluation of the normal training inspection program, the SALP process, NRC licensing examinations, event based reviews, and post-accreditation reviews.
The following are some of the comments made by Mr. Persensky with regard to the Staff's first " Annual Status Report on Implementation of the Commission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification" (SECY-86-119):
- The Staff observed 12 of 58 team visits and found them to be exceptionally good. The team reviews were thorough, constructive, professional, and resource-intensive; the Staff thought that the peer reviewers '
represented a particularly valuable resource. *t d
- The Staff observed most of the accrediting boards and '
found that they performed independent, high quality '
reviews. They force senior utility management involvement which the Staff thinks is essential.
- The Staff found the Self Evaluation Reports consistent
( with INPO guidance and the Team Reports thorough.
- Accreditation seems to have formalized the development l
Process of training programs and heightened management attention.
- The Staff found that in both accredited and non-accredited programs there are weaknesses in the incorporation of procedure changes, license changes, and design changes into training. Also, there continue to be weaknesses in licensed operator requalification training, including inadequate operator evaluation during requalification training.
(
- With regard to NRC licensing examinations, the Staff ,
found generic weaknesses in 10 of 18 accredited programs -
and 39 of 58 non-accredited programs.
The Staff continues to endorse the accreditation effort. The Staff did not find problems that were significant enough to recommend that the effort be stopped and a rule be issued.
1 10 -
h
\
'i'
, .n ,. r.Q;y .
HUMAN FACTORS MEETING July 25, 1986 MINUTES -
JULY 15, 1986 - r f' g ' ' .. ,
Egiure Meetinag ' " .1 .y...
The Subcommittee is scheduled to make a full report during the , ~-
316th ACRS meeting, August 7-9, 1986, and draft letter reports ,. -
Committee consideration. . , . a-4 m.: - :
NOTE- A transcript of this meeting is available in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., or can be purchased from ACE-Federal Reporters, Inc. 444 North Capitol Street, Washington, D.C. 20001, (202) 347-3700.
9 h
I 4
o
.*s* %
l .
t l
11 -
$4275 Fid:rd R:gister / Vol. 51. No.127 / Wedn:sday, iuly 2.1986 / N:tices 1 grandchildren tIdeceased railroad available in the Public Document Room present,may exchange pr;limin ry employees.The collection obtains
, within two weeks. Copies of the revised views regarding matters to be information needed by the Board for SRP Sections or of the complete ' considered during the balance of the determining entitlement to and amount l Standard Resiew Plan. NUREG-0800, meeting. of annuity applied for, g The Subcommittee will then hear Accession No. PD-81-920199. ere available for purchase from the National presentations by and hold discussions Addidonallaformadon se Cements:
with representatives of the NRC Staff.
Copies of the proposed forma and Technical Royal Road. information Service.
Springfield. Virginia 22161;5285 Port its consultants. and other interested supporting documenta may be obtained persons regarding this review. from Pauline lohens the agency telephone f 703) 487-4650. Further information regarding topics clearance officer (312-751-4892).
Dated at Ik thesda. Maryland. ths 24th day to be discussed, whether the meeting Comments regarding the information has been canceled or rescheduled, the ofJune.19% Chairman's ruling on requests for the collection should be addressed to For the Lcbr Rego!4 tor) Com5ssion. opportunity to present oral statements Pauline lohens. Railroad Retirement Board,844 Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois ,
Harold R. Denton, and the time allot'ted therefor can be 80611 and the OMB reviewer. Judy )
Direr Yr O'm of % clear Rec. tar obtained by a prepaid telephone call to l the cognizant ACRS staff member, Mr. McIntosh (202-395-6880). Office of R'PI ## Meagement and Budget. Room 3208. l john Schiffgens (telephone 202/634-
[FR Dn 8' 14' 9 F&d 7-1-86 8 45 am) 1414) between 8.15 a m. and 5:00 p.m.
New Executive Office Building.
sumo coct nwei-u Persons planning to attend this meeting Washington, DC 20503.
are urged to contact the above named Pauline gobens Adv so Committee on Reactor individual one or two days before the scheduled meeting to be advised of any Directorof,3g.frformation goo,g,, ondDato 9 -
hedule, etc, wMch may (FR Doc e6-1a886 Filed 7-1-a6.8.45 am)
Subcommittee on Human Factora; f,*]8,'*gcune" ' d, as.uma coca ress-ei.=
Meeting Dated. }une 27,1986. =
The ACRS Subcommittee onIfuman Morton W. Uberkin. .
- *
- SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE j,",f" gg 1{y 'j;stant En ecutive Directorfor Project Washington, DC. [FR Doc. a6-14966 Fded 7-1-a6; 8 45 amj The entire meetm.g will be open t (Ret.No. IC-15 tes;(a12-4301))
- ownc cooe eseo-ei-u public attendance. ~
Benjamin Franklin Financial Corp.;
The agenda for the s;;bject meeting Application shall be as follows: RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD Tuesday, July !$.1986--S 30 o m until Agency Forms submitted for OMB June 25.19e6 the conclusion of business. Notice is hereby given that Benjamin R'VI'* Franklin Financial Corporation The Subcommittee will review:(1)
SECY-86-153. industry and staff AcENcy: Railroad Retirement Board. l' Applicant"),8200 Meadowood Circle, comments on proposed fitness for duty action:In accordance with the Suite 1145. Reno. Nevada 89502, a Policy Statement. (2) SECY-86-70, Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 (44 newly.f rmed, direct,who!!y owned proposed rulemaking on degree U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Board has limited purpose finance subsidiary of requirements for SROs at nuclear power submitted the following proposa!(s) for Benjamin Franklin Savings Association, plants. (3) SECY-86-119. the annual the collection of information to the a Texas-chartered savings and loan status report on implementation of the Office of Management and Budget for ass clation, which in turn is a wholly-Commission Policy Statement on redew and approvaI. owned subsidiary of Security Capital training and qualification. and (4) the Summary of Proposals Corporation, a publicly held savings and proposed Regulatory Guide 1.114. loan hc! ding company registered under Resision 2. Guidance to Operators at the (1) Collection title: Application for the National Housing Act, filed an Controh and to Senior Operators in the SurvivorInsurance Annuities. application on February 10,1986 and Control Rocm of a Nuclear Power Unit. (2) Form (s) submitted AA-17, AA. amendments thereto on April 22. and Oral state.nents may be presented by 17b, AA-18. AA-19. AA-194. AA-19s. May 8,1986, for an order of the members of the public with the AA-20 and G-476c. Commission, pursuant to section 6(c) of concurrence of the Subcommittee (3) Type of request: Extension of the the Investment Company Act of t940 Chairman; written statements will be expiration date of a currently approved ("Act"), exempting Applicant from all accepted and made asailable to the collection without any change in the Provisions of the Act. Allinterested Committee Recordings willbe permitted substance or in the method of collection. Persons are referred to the application only during those portions of the (4) Frequency of use: On occasion. on file with the Commission for a meeting when a transcript is being kept. (5) Respondents: Individuals or statement of the representat. ions and questions rnay be asked only by households. contained therein,which are .
members of the Subcommittee,its (6) Annualresponses 20.000. summarized below, and to the Act for consultants and Staff. Persons desiring (7) Annualreporting hours: 7.245. the text of its applicable provisions.
to make oral statements should notify (8) Collection description: Under According to the application.
Section 2[d) of the RRA, monthly the ACRS staff member named below as survivor annuities are payable to Applicant's activities will be limited to far in advance as is practicable so that (i) issuing and selling debt securities (A) surviving widow (er)s, parents. rated in the highest band rating category appropriate arrangements can be made During the initial portion of the unmarried children and. In certain cases, of two nationally recognized statistical meeting, the Subcommittee, along with divorced wives (husbands). mothers rating agencies, and (B) secured by any any ofits consultants who may be (fathers). remarried widow (er]s and
- ATTACHMENT A i
July 9, 1986 REVISION 4 PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR THE JULY 15, 1986 MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN FACTORS 8:30am Opening Statement F. Remick 15 min
-8:45 Fitness for Duty - Staff Report: J. Partlow 90
- Discussion of "EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol /
Fitness for Duty Policy Development" (9/85);
- Proposed Commission Policy Statement on Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (5/14/86); and
- Differences between the Policy Statement and the Previously Proposed Rule (reviewed by ACRS - 8/9/83).
NUMARC Response to Questions on Proposed Commission Policy J. Griffin Statement on Fitness for Duty. C. Larson 10:15 BREAK 15 l
1 ' ' "' r eactor Operator Qualifications -
Staff Report: 90
- Background
- Report from " Reactor Operator Qualifications Peer Review Panel" (SECY-82-162); D. Jones ,
- Results of " Job Task Analyses" - relevance to Proposed Rulemaking D. Jones
- Proposed Rulemaking - Degree Requirements for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants. G. West ATTACHMENT B 7 -
4
/
SCHEDULE / MEETING HUMAN FACTORS July 9, 1986 SUBCOMMITTEE -
JULY 15, 1986 REVISION 4
- Industry Response to Generic Letter 86-04, Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift. G. West 12:00 LUNCH 60 min 1:00pm NUMARC Comments on Proposed Rulemaking - Degree Requirements for Senior Operators at Nuclear J. Griffin Power Plants. C. Larson 15 1:15 Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel - Staff Briefing: J. Persensky 60
- The NRC's Approach to Training Evaluation Based on the Policy Statement; and
- The 1st Annual Status Report on Implementation of the Policy Statement.
NUMARC Response to Questions on
!nplementation of the Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power J. Griffin Plant Personnel. C. Larson
. ~5 BREAK 15
' 30 Proposed Regulatory Guide 1.114 -
Staff Report G. West 30 3:00 Executive Session 60 4:00 ADJOURN B-2 8 -
HUMAN FACTORS _
- R$ SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON ROOM 1046 LOCAT.13:l:
JULY 15,1986 MTE*
ATTENDANCE LIST Pl. EASE PRINT: -
~
NAME AFFILIATION m * >ov tx '.
Mtf 0/)f /$ u ! , ,.
I) k .- a f I/ ' '
gA g,9 _
ti sr
)0 Ebs se ll v it fd Ghr b h !
blh w w
^ kY '
II.
ll. .c 2 & n <
c 2Ak ?!
vot / .rb
- h. NaA "
njg c / ;E P '(V1b Ain / l f f Nogono M c / I E.
L CE < sh U[C lbilf i
_N l'k "m' ACKE Al6? C
_ k~I.hf_ x.w' TseI4e)
' .. .. A, n IU U S RA LP n E. Fui.LfC Mn M . Ca',$n kdem 9=st *Cyh
! k n c.
Row rs ,a
.1%o 4 W F % .a A /, as ,,, ,
dsrn .
fcs hTIT ,DRk ,
b.I9. -w
' L ass. h ssma 1er/ue.e /d l Mlo PE Mnm 10,,0r= &e hafr-ih r //
ATT^CHNENT C
' 1)m-r '/s& Mgt, J. L. Kctura -
- *ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING ON HUMAN FACT 0RS __
j ROOM 1046 ._
LOCATIOl: I MTE, JULY 15,1986 ATTENDANCE LIST PLEASE PRINT: ,
NAME BADGE NO. AFFILIATION -
13R V/TMIt 609f? A C (' '
r~uLtER Eo I7 % NUS 7sJr6d drh Atn Gog % -
A hn M. &(L E0997 wn Laiban,&
4 / AJaxai icm27 AArdL A lu, %J com 'M n c 5$2-~ &lJoa E-o79P 9 E.py> k97 c f 6 T E d E 0 1 6 )ft1 C-2
ATTACHMENT D LIST OF HANDOUTS JULY 15, 1986 MEETING OF THE ACRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN FACTORS WASHINGTON, D.C.
- 1. ACRS BRIEFING ON FITNESS FOR DUTY, July 15, 1986
- 2. DEGREE ON SHIFT - BACKGROUND, Daniel B. Jones, NRR/HFIB/DHFT
- 3. ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING--DEGREE REQUIREMENT FOR SENIOR OPERATORS AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, Garmon West, Jr.,
NRR/HFIB/DHFT
- 4. SURVEY ON ENGINEERING EXPERTISE ON SHIFT, Garmon West, Jr.,
NRR/HFIB/DHFT
- 5. PROPOSED REGULATORY GUIDE 1.114, Revision 2, " GUIDANCE TO OPERATORS AT THE CONTROLS AND TO SENIOR OPERATORS IN THE CONTROL ROOM OF A NUCLEAR POWER UNIT," Garmon West, Jr., NRR/HFIB/DHFT
- 6. POLICY STATEMENT ON TRAINING AND QUALIFICATIONS OF NPP PERSONNEL, J. J. Persensky, NRR, Maintenance & Training Branch, DHFT ATTACHMENT D
_ - . _. ._ ___ -.___ _ -. _ . . . - _ _ _ _ . . . .-