ML20212D416
| ML20212D416 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/21/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-RIA, TASK-SE SECY-86-348, NUDOCS 8701020003 | |
| Download: ML20212D416 (155) | |
Text
\\
J s
?
\\
S E
E
%,...+/
RULEMAKING ISSUE November 21, 1986 (Affirmation) szcy_ss_348 For:
The Comissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
FINAL RULEMAKING FOR REVISIONS TO OPERATOR LICENSING -
10 CFR 55 AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS
Purpose:
To obtain Comission approval to:
(1) publish final rules and (2) complete three associated regulatory guides.
Background:
In February 1984, SECY 84-76 forwarded proposed revisions to 10 CFR 55 and Regulatory Guides 1.134, 1.149, and 1.8.
As a result of Commission action on SECY 84-76, the proposed revisions to 10 CFR 55, Regulatory Guides, and a conforming amendment to 10 CFR 50.74 were issued for public coment in November / December 1984.
In addition, a " Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel" was published in March 1935.
Following resolution of public coments and incorporation of the provisions of the Comission's Policy Statement on Training and Qualification, SECY 86-123 forwarded the final rulemaking package for revisions to operator licensing:
10 CFR 55, conforming amendments to 10 CFR 50, and proposed regulatory guides.
By Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated October 17, 1986, the Commission gave tentative approval to the final rule on operator licensing, subject to the modifications specified in the SRM. The SRM directed the staff to incorporate the necessary modifications and return the package for final Commission approval and affirmation.
Sumary:
The final rules and regulatory guides will improve the operator licensing process and will achieve the following objectives:
CONTACT:
Bruce A. Boger, NRR (49-28807) lSSGO N
.. 1.
Improve the safety of nuclear power plant operations by improving the operator licensing process and examination content, 2.
Provide the NRC with an improved basis for administering operator licensing examinations and conducting operating tests, and 3.
Respond to the specific direction given by Congress in Section 306, Nuclear Waste Policy Acting of 1982, Pub.L.97-425, to promulgate regulations and guidance in the area of examinations.
Discussion:
The amendments and guidelines contained in SECY 86-123 have been revised to incorporate the modifications attached to the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated October 17, 1986. A discussion of the staff response to the Commission's requested modifications is provided below:
1.
In consultation with OGC, the staff has moved the nine point backfit analysis from Section IV of the Federal Register Notice to the Executive Sumary of the Regulatory Analysis.
In Section IV, the exemption l
from the backfit rule is stated.
2.
Section 55.53 has been modified to require an operator to stand at least seven 8-hour shifts or five 12-hour shifts a calendar quarter in order to maintain active operator status.
3.
Section 55.33(a)(5) has been added to specify a minimum level of control manipulations to be conducted i
under instruction in the power plant control room for i
a license applicant. The transition from " cold" to i
" hot" for determining license examination eligibility is revised to be consistent with the schedule of fees l
in 10 CFR 170.21. The previous proposal of using l
operation for at least one month at 20% power to I
establish " hot" examination eligibility would be difficult to administer for both the industry and the NRC. The staff proposes that applicants are " cold" candidates until the completion of the startup and power ascension test program at the facility. An applicant from a " cold" plant may use a simulation facility to meet the control manipulation requirement with additional training, including observation at
" hot" plants. Moreover, separate consideration is given to overall shift crew experience at the time of initial licensing of the facility consistent with guidance published in Generic Letter 84-16 dated June 27, 1984. An applicant from a plant experiencing an extended shutdown after achieving " hot" status will
i
. be required to provide evidence that the license applicant has successfully conducted control manipulations on the actual plant prior to issuance of a license without conditions to the applicant (i.e., a license limited to shutdown operations could be issued).
4.
Section 55.57(b)(4) has been changed in accordance with the wording in the attachment to the staff requirements memorandum.
5.
On page.17 of the statement of considerations, clarifying language has been added to state that inherent in the Commission's authority to modify, suspend, or revoke an operator's or senior operator's license is its ability to place an operator or senior operator licensee under probation, if warranted.
6.
On page 3 of the statement of considerations, the language has been reworded to state that for other than changes to license amendments and technical specifications, facility licensees may conform to the i
final' rules in accordance with 10 CFR 50.59.
7.
The incorporation by reference of the industry standard in "Subpart C-Medical Requirements" has been deleted.
Instead, as noted below, Regulatory Guide 1.134 which endorses ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 without exception would become final with Commission approval of this rulemaking package.
8.
Based on discussions with OGC and in consideration of the type of criminal activity of concern in the licensing process, the requirement on NRC Form 396 has been modified. Only convictions of a felony will be required to be reported on the revised form.
9.
Additional clarifying language included in the staff requirements memorandum has been incorporated into the Federal Register Notice.
In addition to the modifications discussed above, one other point of clarification was made in the Federal Register Notice. The statement of considerations has been revised to state that the requirement for a biennial examination by a physician is intended to uncover drug dependency or alcoholism or both; drug and alcohol use are covered by the Commission Policy Statement on Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (51 FR 27921, published August 4, 1986).
OGC has reviewed and concurs in the modifications to 10 CFR 55 and the conforming amendments addressed in this paper.
l
i
, The Commission also requested, through Commissioner Robert's memorandum of October 3,1986, information regarding resource implications of requiring an NRC administered requalification examination prior to renewal of a six-year license and within three years of the renewal. Based on current budget and resource assumptions, the following responds to Commissioner Robert's three questions:
1.
There are currently 54 FTEs available to perform the projected facility examinations and the NRC requalification examination goal.
In FY 87, 73 FTEs are budgeted. These resources include both NRC staff examiners and contract examiners.
2.
NRC currently budgets to administer 470 requalification examinations to 10% of all licensed operators each year.
If the NRC were to administer a similar examination on a six-year cycle as a part of license renewal, examiner resources would increase to
. examine 16% of all licensed operators each year.
If the exam is given during the last three years of a license, the additional examiner resources required l
are expected to remain constant at approximately the current level for the first three years, and then would increase by approximately 9 FTEs to examine an additional 280 individuals.
3.
If the NRC were to administer an examination equivalent to an initial licensing examination to each operator requesting a license renewal, the required resources would again remain constant for the first three years, and then would increase by approximately 11 FTEs.
Recommendations: That the Commission:
1.
Approve publication of the final rules set forth in Enclosure A, which would amend 10 CFR Parts 50 and 55 and become effective 60 days after the date of publication.
2.
In order to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), certify that these rules will have not a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is included in the enclosed Federal Register notice.
L l
3.
Note:
a.
That revisions to Regulatory Guides 1.134, 1.149 and 1.8 also will become final (Enclosures D, E, and F).
l
-e.
o b.
That the Executive Summary of the Regulatory Analysis has been modified in accordance with the staff requirements memorandum to SECY 86-123 (Enclosure G).
c.
That the resolution to public comments on proposed rule changes to 10 CFR 55 (Enclosure B) and Regulatory Guides 1.134, 1.149 and 1.8 (Enclosure C) have been revised to reflect the modifications made in accordance with the staff requirements memorandum to SECY 86-123.
d.
That recommended items b-j noted in SECY 86-123 will be completed, as appropriate.
e.
That changes in Enclosures A to F from SECY 86-123 required by the SRM dated October 17, 1986, are indicated by a vertical line in the margin next to the change. A clean copy has been provided to SECY.
g
.W-Ic ctor Stello,'
Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
A.
Federal Register Notice B.
Resolution of Public Coments on Proposed Rule Changes to 10 CFR 55 C.
Resolution of Public Coments -
Regulatory Guides 1.134, 1.149, and 1.8 D.
" Medical Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses" E.
" Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Examinations" F.
" Qualifications and Training Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants" G.
Regulatory Analysis (Executive Sumary)
.--.,,w.
6 Commissioners comments should be provided directly to SECY by c.o.b. December 10, 1986.
Commission staff office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT December 3, 1986, with an information copy to SECY.
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.
This paper is tentatively scheduled for affirmation at an open meeting during the week of December 15, 1986.
Please refer to the appropriate weekly Commission Schedule, when published, for a specific date and time.
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC (H Street)
OI OCA OIA OPA Regional Offices EDO DEP EDO DEDO /IRM DEP EX DIR FOR REGIONAL OPS
& GENERIC REQS ADMIN RM OGC (MNBB)
I&E RES l
SP l
IP l
AEOD DMB ACRS ASLBP ASLAP SECY a
l l
s r-
ENCLOSURE A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE OPERATORS' LICENSES AND CONFORMING AMEN 0MENTS "d
l l
l l
i l
i
[7590-01]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 50 and 55 Operators' Licenses and Conforming Amendments AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUfEARY:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to
~
(1) clarify the regulations for issuing licenses to operators and senior operators; (2) revise the requirements and scope of written examinations and operating tests for operators and senior operators, including a requirement for a simulation facility; (3) codify procedures for administering requalification examinations; and (4) describe the form and content for operator license appli-I
~
cations.
The rule is necessary to meet NRC responsibilities under Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.
DATES:
Effective Date:
[60 days after Federal Register publication date]
~~
s Public Meeting.Date:
A Public meeting will be held to discuss implementation
~
of the requirements of this rule approximately 30 days after the publication date of this rule.
Notice of this meeting will be published approximately 2 i
weeks in advance of the meeting.
ADDRESSES:
Examine background information for the rule that includes a copy of the regulatory analysis, the supporting statement for the Office of Management and Budget clearance of the information collection requirements, Regulatory Guides, ANSI /ANS standards, NUREG-series documents, other documents discussed in this notice, and reports that contain a detailed analysis of the i
public comments received during the public comment period and their resolution l
at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, NW., Washington, D.C.
l Enclosure A 1
[7590-01]'
Obtain a single copy of the reports concerning public comments from Chief, Operator Licensing Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wahsington, D.C. 20555, Telephone: 301-492-4868.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief, Operator Licensing Branch, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: (301) 492-4868.
m.
i Enclosure A 2
[7590-01]
=
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I.
BACKGROUND Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137),
requires the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to prescribe uniform conditions for
~
licensing individuals as operators of production and utilization facilities and to determine the qualifications of these individuals and to issue licenses to such individuals.
The regulations in.plementing these requirements are set out in Part 55 of Title 10, Chapter 1, of the Code of Federal Regulations. To as-sist licensees and others, the Commission also has issued regulatory guides and generic letters that provide guidance on acceptable methods of meeting these regulatory requirements.
The Commission has become increasingly aware of the need to update its operator licensing regulations and related regulatory guides.
These revisions 1
are needed to clarify the' extent to which simulators should be used in licensing examinations and to reflect upgraded requirements for licensed operator selection, training, and requalification programs resulting from the accident at TMI-2.
Although the Commission has been actively engaged in investigating these matters, the schedule for completing these activities was further accelerated by the
- T enactment on January 7, 1983, of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Pub.L.97-425.
Section 306 of that act (42 U.S.C. 10226, 96 Stat. 2201 at 2262-2263) directs the NRC to establish (1) simulator training requirements for applicants j-for operator licenses and for operator requalification programs, (2) requirements l
governing NRC administration of requalification examinations, and (3) require-ments for operating tests at civilian nuclear power plant simulators.
On November 26, 1984, the Commission published proposed amendments to 10 CFR 55, " Operators' Licenses" in the Federal Register (49 FR 46428).
These l
amendments proposed granting, in part, a petition for rulemaking (PRM-55-1) l that was filed by KMC, Inc.
PRM-55-1 is discussed more fully under Section II.B,
" Medical Requirements." A 90-day comment period expired on February 25, 1985.
l Comments were received from 88 respondents.
An additional 17 respondents com-l l
mented on the three associated regulatory guides, also issued for public comment.
I Reports that contain a detailed analysis of these comments and their resolution i
are available as indicated under "f0 DRESSES:".
Enclosure A 3
i
- - - ~ -. -..
- - - _,--. -.,,. _.. -...., -,. -. ~ _
~. -..... -. - -
[7590-01]*
These proposed revisions to 10 CFR 55 were to improve the operator licensing process and to achieve the following objectives:
(1) Improve the safety of nuclear power plant operations by improving the operator licensing process and examination content, (2) Provide the NRC with an improved basis for administering operator licensing examinations and conducting operating tests, and 1
(3) Respond to the specific direction given by Congress in Section 306, Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Pub.L.97-425, to promulgate regulations and guidance in the area of examinations.
On March 20, 1985, the Commission published a Final Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (50 FR 11147) that
~
describes the Commission's current policy regarding training of operators.
In addition to this. policy statement, the Commission is publishing the new rules described in this notice; these rules supercede all current regulations for operator licenses.
Those facility licensees that have made a commitment that is less than that required by these new rules must conform to the new rules automatically.
Those facility licensees that have made a commitment different 6
from or more than that required by these new rules for license amendments and technical specification changes, may apply to the Commission so that they can conform to these new rules.
Other changes should be made in accordanca
- th 10 CFR 50.59.
Production facilities previously included in Part 55 are not refer-enced in the revisions since there are no operators at production facilities currently licensed by the Commission.
Although special consideration has been given to the smaller size and scope of test and research reactors the require-ments in this notice apply to all utilization facilities licensed under 10 CFR 50, including test and research reactors.
Consequently, except where specific word-ing has been used to note different requirements, these rules apply to test and 4
research reactors.
[
Enclosure A 4
4 4
[7590-01]
II.
SUMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS AND FINAL ACTIONS The proposed amendments to improve the operator licensing process have been modified in response to the comments received.
A sumary of the public
~
comments and, where appropriate, a description of the changes that resulted from them follows.
A.
General Comments (1) General purpose of these amendments.
Several comenters provided general support for the proposed rule.
Other commenters suggested changes to clarify the purpose and exemptions sections.
These sections were reworded as a result of the evaluation of these comments.
In particular, the purpose of the rule indicates that terms and conditions of operators' licenses and renewal are covered.
Exemption for trainees at a facility is clarified to indicate that a trainee is only exempted while participating in an NRC-approved training program to qualify for an operator license.
In addition, employees involved in fuel handling are exempt if they are supervised by a licensed senior operator.
(2) Definitions.
Many commenters were concerned with the specific definitions in the rule.
A number of commenters addressad the definitions of " simulation facility" and " plant-referenced simulator," and requested clarification of the NRC's intent for the use of such devices in the partial conduct of operating tests.
Several commenters believed that only plant-referenced simulators would be permitted.
I The definition of a " plant-referenced simulator" is intended to mean a simula-tor that meets all of the requirements of ANSI /ANS 3.5-1985, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.149, " Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Examinations," (see Section V, Regulatory Guides, of this Supplementary Information).
l The definition of a " simulation facility" is intended to provide for flexibility in the conduct of the simulator (non plant-walkthrough) portion of the operating test.
The intent is to permit, under circumstances specified in 10 CFR 55.45 (b), the use of the plant itself, and/or a plant-referenced simulator, and/or j
Enclosure A 5
[7590-01]*
some other type of simulation device such as a part-task or basic principles simulator, for the conduct of the simuletor portion of the operating test.
A. number of commenters expressed concern that a plant, when used as a simulator, could not safely perform the full range of functions that a simulator could perform, and some commenters requested clarification about the limitation of the conditions under which the plant could be used.
It is not the intent of NRC to permit or encourage the initiation of transients on the plant when and if the plant is used as a simulation facility.
The use of the plant is envisioned as a possible approach that a facility licensee might propose to use in conjunction with another simulation device or devices, in lieu of a plant-referenced simulator.
This approach might be suitable, for. example, for older plants without access to plant-referenced simulators, where manipula-tions of the plant, to the extent consistent with plant conditions, might be used to demonstrate familiarity with the plant for which the candidate would be licensed.
Several commenters suggested that the definition of " reference plant" should not be specific to a plant and its unit.
The word " unit" has been deleted from 7
this definition, although it remains the NRC's intent that a reference plant refer to a specific docket number.
For those situations in which a multi-unit plant is composed of units from the same vendor and vintage, it is likely that only one simulation facility would be required.
For others, Regulatory Guide 1.149 provides specific guidance for those facility licensees that want to consider the use of one simulation facility for use at more than one nuclear power plant.
This guidance is based upon existing NRC policy on the granting of multiunit operators' licenses.
B.
Medical Requirements
]
(1) Criteria for medical requirements.
Most commenters agreed with the rev'isions to the medical certification process, which would require, for the usual case, a brief certification by the facility licensee on Form NRC-396, as revised.
Some commenters questioned the relationship of these requirements to drug and alcohol problems and programs.
Other commenters were confused about Enclosure A 6
l'7590-011 who would have responsibility for determining the medical condition of an operator or applicant for an operator's license.
Some comments were made about the specific language in the medical requirements regarding disqualifying con-4 l
ditions and commenters requested changes or clarification. Many commenters noted the need to adjust the medical requirements to the renewal cycle.
The medical requirements reflect the industry standard articulated in ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983, "Pedical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants."1 The intent is to prevent the manipulation of the controls by an operator whose medical condition and general health would cwse operational errors endangering public health and safety. The medical re@irements rely on examination of the applicant or operator by a licensed phytksan who evaluates the medical condition of the operator, based on the criterte of ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 that is endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.134, "Medi-cal Evalugxion of Licensed Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," and makes recom-mendations to the facility's management. The facility's management is responsi-ble for certifying the suitability of the applicant for a license. The NRC has the responsibility for making an assessment of the applicant for a license, including the applicant's medical fitness.
Neither the facility nor the NRC staff will make medical judgments. When a conditional license is requested, l
the NRC will use a qualified medical expert to review the medical evidence sub-mitted by the facility to make a determination.
For minor conditions, such as i
the need to wear corrective lenses or a hearing aid, the Form NRC 396 is modi-fied to simplify the process for obtaining a medically conditioned license.
Moreover, while the biennial medical examination required under 6 55.21 is intended 'to detect alcoholism or drug dependency or both, no reference is made in the rule to alcohol or drug problems. These issues are covered in a Policy Statement on Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (51 FR 27921),
published on August 4, 1986, by the Commission.
In addition, the license renewal period is changed to 6 years to be compatible with the t,iennial medical examination ?quirements.
IStandards discussed in this rule are asailable for purchase from American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, Illinois 60525 Enclosure A 7
[7590-01].
In July 1983, KMC, Inc., petitioned the Commission (PRM-55-1) "to simplify the procedure for the review of the medical status of applicants for operator-
... licenses." KMC stated that the current procedures require that a detailed medical history and results of the applicant's medical examination by a licensed physician be sent to the Commission.
The petitioner requested that the Commission amend its regulations to permit designated medical examiners, as defined in ANSI N546-1976, to' certify that the applicant has been examined (using the guid-ance contained in ANSI N546-1976 as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.134) and that the applicant's general health and physical condition is not such as may cause operational errors.
Under the petitioner's request the use of the current NRC Form 396 would be discontinued for utility operators and detailed medical
~
records would be retained by the licensee's designated medical examiner.
Sub-part C to Part 55 responds to the KMC, Inc. petition.
NRC grants its request, in part, by eliminating the requirement to submit, in usual cases, medical info.~
mation for an applicant for an operator's license directly to the NRC.
- Instead, I
as described above, a certification to NRC about compliance with the health re-quirements in 6 55.33(a)(1) would be made by the facility licensee.
(2) Notification of incapacitation because of disability or illness; Some confusion was noted by several commenters regarding the process to notify
-'i the Commission when an operator was incapacitated beer se of disability or ill-ness.
The final rule is changed to reflect more cleady the Commission's intent.
That is, if, during the term of the license, an operator's medical condition changes and does not meet the requirements set forth in ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983, noti-fication of the Commission by the facility licensee is required.
At the same time, if the examining physician indicates that the condition can be accommo-dated as noted in Section 5.1 of ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983, a conditional license may be requested by an authorized representative of the facility licensee.
Form NRC 396 must be used and supporting medical evidence must be supplied.
- However, the facility licensee does not have to wait for permission from the Commission before returning an operator to licensed duties, if the operator has been ex-amined ay a physician, who using ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 as a basis, has recommended to the facility's management that the operator can return.
(3) Test and research reactors.
Many test and research reactor operators were concerned that the requirements in the rule changed the medical requirements Enclosure A 8
l
m a
[7590-01]
I for them.
The rule changes only the requirements for test and research reactor-facility licensees.
It does not change the status quo for reactor operators, i
for whom ANSI /ANS-15.4-1977(N 380), " Selection and Training of Personnel for Research Reactors," requirements continue.
C.
Applications Applications for an operator license require the facility licensee to certify that there is a need for the applicant to perform assigned duties.
Several commenters were concerned that the "need" was not clearly defined.
The requirements are in-t.nded to simply have the facility licensee's management internally review the i
need for the license before the application is made.
Another concern of many commenters was the relationship between industry-accredited training programs and the details regarding training and experience needed to apply to the NRC on Form NRC-398.
In addition, some commenters were concerned with the defini-tion of the phrase " learned to operate." This. phrase has been deleted from S 55.31 and replaced by wording which indicates that if a candidate successfully completes the training and experience requirements to be licensed as an operator, the NRC will conduct the appropriate examination and operating test.
Sec-tion 55.33(a)(5) has been added to specify the minimum number of control mani-7 pulations to be conducted by an applicant.
Details regarding other training i,
and qualification will not be required to be supplied on Form NRC-398, if these requirements are contained in an NRC-approved training program that uses a simulation facility acceptable to the NRC under S 55.45(b).
Subject to con-tinued Commission endorsement of the industry's accreditation process under the Final Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (50 FR 11147; March 20, 1985), a facility licensee's training program l
would be approved by being accredited by the National Nuclear Accrediting Board.
D.
Written Examinations rad Operating Tests (1) Content.
Most commenters recommended that the principal means of determin-ing the knowledge, skills, and abilities to be included. in operator licensing written examinations and operating tests should be the learning objectives derived from a systematic analysis of the job performance requirements.
These Enclosure A 9
[7590-01]
commenters recommended that these learning objectives form the basis and scope of examinations and tests and that other sources of information should only be used until the learning objectives are available for a facility.
Conversely, some commenters questioned as premature the endorsement by NRC of a systematic analysis from which to draw the content for licensing examinations and tests.
One commenter recommended that NRC issue a document that specifically delineates what an operator is responsible for on NRC examinations and operating tests.
Systematic analysis of job performance requirements is an accepted methodology for deriving licensing examination content.
The job-task analyses are being performed as part of the performance-based programs that are being implemented by facility licensees as part of the industry supported accreditation program.
The learning objectives derived from these job-task analyses should form the l
basis for licensing written examinations and operating tests at a facility.
l7 Ultimately, the NRC testing objectives will reflect facility licensee-developed learning objectives.
In the interim, while these programs are being developed and reviewed for accreditation, the t'RC has activities underway to improve the content validity of NRC examinations and operating tests.
(
(2) Specific wording of categories.
Many commenters made specific wording recommendations for the categories listed under content of the written examina-tions and operating test.
These suggestions were reviewed by subject-matter experts and changes were made to clarify or improve the content categories.
No major changes resulted except to two categories under the operating test.
Under S 55.45, categories (12)-and (13) were reworded as follows:
(12) Demonstrate the knowledge and ability as appropriate to the assigned position, to assume the responsibilities associated with the safe operation of the facility.
(13) Demonstrate the applicant's ability to function within the control room team s appropriate to the assigned position, in such a way that the facility licensee's procedures are adhered to and that the limitations in its license and admendments are not violated.
Enclosure A 10
[7590-01]
(3) Waivers.
Several commenters suggested that examinations and tests be auto-matically waived unoer specific circumstances.
As the agency responsible for public health and safety with regard to nuclear facilities, the Commission can-not waive its independent assessment of operators.
Waivers are based on opera-tors previously passing all or part of a licensing examination.
Details re-garding the processing of waivers are addressed in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licens-ing Examiner Standards."2 (4) Integrity of examinations and tests.
Although many commenters supported the addition of 8 55.49, " Integrity of Examinations and Tests," they felt that the penalties in S 55.71 were excessive.
Other commenters were afraid that any action might be interpreted as cheating and that the role of facility licensees in enforcement was unclear.
The NRC always has prosecutorial discretion not to take enforcement action in unclear cases.
The language in S 55.71 on criminal violations only covers persons who " willfully violate" the Atomic Energy Act or the NRC's regulations and'does not apply to situations such as discussions after an examination is administered or when a previously administered examination is used as a practice examination.
I E.
Simulation Facilities 7
(1) Application Process Many commenters were concerned with what they termed the burdensome procedure requiring initial and subsequent application for appro-val to use a simulation facility.
Most of these commenters felt that certifica-tion by the facility licensee to the NRC that the simulation facility met indus-try standards should suffice, when combined with the NRC's ability to audit the simulation facility and review the supporting documentation.
The Commission has amended the final rule to reflect the position taken in these comments.
Any facility licensee that proposes to use a simulation facility 2NUREG-series documents are available 'Jr public inspection and copying for a l
fee in the Commission's Public Documer.t Room at 1717 H Street.NW.. 'ashington, 1
DC.
These documents may be purchased from the U.S. Government' Pr.
'g Office (GPO) by celling 202-275-2060 or by writing the GPO, P.O. Box 37081 fashington, DC 20013-7082.
They may also be purchased from the National Technic.
Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Roa Springfield, VA 22161.
Enclosure A 11
[7590-01]*
that meets the definition of a plant referenced simulator (essentially a simu-lator that meets the requirements of ANS-3.5, 1985, " Nuclear Power Plant Simu-lators for Use in Operator Training," as modified by Regulatory Guide 1.149) will be required only to certify this to the Commission, and to maintain records pertaining to performance testing results for Commission review or audit.
Any facility licensee that proposes to use a simul,ation facility that is other than a plant-referenced simulator will be required to submit a plan detailing how the requiremerits of 6 55.45 will be met on the alternative device or devices, followed by an application for NRC approval for use of the simulation facility.
However, in response to the numerous comments received, this application process has been greatly simplified, and the requirement for a periodic " subsequent" application has been eliminated.
In support of its certification or its appli-cation, as appropriate, each facility licensee will be required to conduct periodic performance tests on its simulation facility, and maintain records pertaining to the conduct of these tests and the results obtained.
It is the Commission's intent that those facility licensees that submit a cer-tification for a simulation facility may immediately begin use of the certified l
simulation facility for the conduct of operating tests at the reference plant.
K (2) Performance Testina.
Many comments addressed the requirement for the con-duct of a series of performance tests, in which an extensive range of tests would be conducted over a 4 year cycle, 25 percent per year.
The industry standard which was in effect at the time of the proposed rulemaking, ANSI /ANS 3.5-1981, required complete simulator performance testing every four years, and R.G. 1.149 endorsed that requirement.
In addition, the R.G. specified that all malfunctions which a simulation facility was capable of performing should be tested to the extent that such malfunctions could be used in the conduct of operating tests.
The majority of commenters felt that the burden of conducting these tests would demand an excessive amount of time on the part of the-simulation facility as well as the facility licensee's staff.
Numerous suggestions were made propos-ing lists of performance tests thoiJht to be appropriate, suggesting alternative formulas for the cycle of performance testing, or offering suggestions that the rule merely endorse a new version of the industry standard which was in prepara-tion at the time.
Enclosure A 12
[7590-01]
A new version of the standard, identified as ANSI /ANS 3.5-1985, was published after the expiration of the public comment period.
In response to the comments received and to the newly issued industry standard, R.G. 1.149 has been changed to endorse the new standard, with exceptions, and to include in its endorsement the specific, limited list of malfunction performance tests contained in the standard.
However, although the new standard continues to require the conduct of simulator performance tests, it has deleted the requirement that these tests be conducted on a four year cycle for the life of the simulator.
Instead it has substituted an annual operability test, and now requires that performance tests be conducted only upon completion of initial simulator construction and in the event that simulator design changes result in significant simulator configuration or performance variations.
In addition, the standard is silent on the subject of periodic testing of mal-functions.
The NRC endorsement of the standard in the R.G. takes exception to the deletion of periodic performance testing.
The regulations will require performance testing to be conducted throughout the life of a simulation facility, on a four year cycle, at the rate of approximately 25 percent per year.
The protection of public health and safety requires that licensed operators not M
only be proficient in general operations but be able to safely cope with plant transients and malfunctions.
Thus a reactor operator license candidate's
~
response to malfunctions during an operating test is an important factor in the I
examiner's assessment of that candidate's performance.
It is also necessary l
l to avoid misleading or negative training, which could result from the use of a l
simulation facility which does not correctly portray plant response to malfunc-tions.
Therefore the ability of a simulation facility to faithfully portray plant malfunctions as well as general operability is to be verified by periodic performance testing.
Such testing provides assurance that the simulation facility remains acceptable over time and continues to meet the Commission's regulations. A definition of performance testing has Jeen added to S 55.4, and the requirements for performance testing have ber i clarified in the appli-cable paragraphs of 6 55.45(b), as they apply to all simulation facilities, whether certified or approved.
Enclosure A 13
[7590-01]*
(3) Schedule.
A number of comments included criticism of the time schedules specified as being unreasonably short for submitting a simulation facility plan i
and for having a simulation facility in full compliance with the regulation.
The regulation has been changed to allow 1 year (versus 120 days) for a facil-ity licensee to submit a plan detailing its approach to the. simulation facility requirement; and to allow 4 years (versus 3) for its simulation facility to be in full compliance with the regulation.
Those facility licensees that certify the use of a plant-referenced simulator will not have to submit a plan.
l (4) Penalty for unavailability of simulation facility.
Several comments expressed concern that the penalty was too harsh for the unavailability of a simulation facility acceptable to the Commission.
It is the Commission's intent that every facility licensee have available a simulation facility that meets the Commission's requirements within a reasonable period of time after the effective date of the rule, and that, once available, the simulation facility be maintained and upgraded, as needed, to continue its acceptability for the conduct of operating tests.
The Commission recognizes that unique circumstances may arise on a plant-specific basis that cause some 7
deviation from the time requirements established in the rule and that, from time-to-time, a previously certified or approved simulation facility may become
~
temporarily unacceptable for the conduct of operating tests.
It is the Commis-i -
sion's intent to address any such situations on a case-by-case basis.
(5) Lack of guidance for assessment.
A number of comments expressed concern that the guidance to be used by the Commission in its assessment of simulation facility adequacy was not yet available.
It is the Commission's intent that no simulation facility audits will be conducted until this guidance has been fully developed and made publicly available for a minimum of 6 months.
(6) Applicability to future facility licensees.
Several commenters questioned
]
whether the Commission's regulations regarding simulation facilities were intended to apply to future facility licensees.
i Enclosure A 14
[7590-01)
It is the Commission's intent that these regulations apply to futura facility licensees as well as current facility licensees.
~
(7) Test and research reactor operators. Several test and research reactor operators were concerned that the requirements in the rule changed the licens-ing process for them. As stated above, the rule does not change the status quo for this category of operator. The definition of " simulation facility" in 5 55.4 allows the plant to be used to meet the requirements of 9 55.45(b).
In addition, specific wording in 9 55.45(b) permits test and research reactor fa-cility licensees to be exempted from submitting a plan for the use of a simu-lation facility that is other than a plant-referenced simulator.
F.
Licenses (1) Special Senior Operator Licenses. Many commenters questioned the issuance of special senior licenses.
Several argued that current instructor certification requirements were sufficient, others indicated that industry-accredited programs include instructor evaluation, and others cited the Commission's Policy Statement on Training and Qualifications of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel as conflicting with these licenses.
The Commission has deleted the provision for the issuance of special senior operator licenses from the final rule. This action is in recognition of the industry accreditation of training programs, which includes instructor treining, qualification and evaluation, and is in keeping with the intent of the Commis-sion Policy Statement on Training and Qualifications of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.
Industry efforts in implementing instructor training, qualification and evaluation programs will be monitored as described by the Policy Statement.
Moreover, senior operator licenses limited to fuel handling will continue to be issued as they are currently. However, since industry accreditation includes instructor evaluation, current NPC instructor certification will not continue.
A great number of commenters had specific suggestions regarding the requirements for special senior operators. These comments are no longer applicable since the Commission has deleted these licenses from the final rule.
Enclosure A 15
._.m._
[7590-01]
(2) " Actively performing the functions of an operator or senior operator."
Although only one commenter specifically questioned the definition of " actively performing the [ functions] of," a great many commenters questioned this phrase in regard to R.G. 1.8, " Personnel Qualifications and Training for Nuclear Power i
Plants," as it was published for public comment in conjunction with the proposed rule.
From the comments made in response to the regulatory guide and other comments made regarding the provision in the rule under "Requalification," which required that an operator or senior operator be " actively and extensively en-gaged" as an operator or senior operator, it is clear that many commenters were confused about the degree of participation in plant operations that is required as a condition to maintain an operator's or senior operator's license.
To pre-vent further confusion, the rule has been modified in S 55.4, " Definitions," to provide the following definition:
" Actively perforraing the functions of an operator or senior operator"
~
means that an individual has a position on the shift crew that re-quires the individual to be licensed as defined in the facility's technical specifications, and that the individual carries out and is responsible for the duties covered by that position.
4 T
In addition, several commenters were concerned that the requirements were unclear regarding the return to " active" status following a period during which a licensee has not been " actively performing the functions of an operator or senior operator" for a period of 4 months or longer. Therefore, the following requirements have been added:
If an operator has not performed licensed duties on a minimum of seven 8-hour shifts or five 12-hour shifts per quarter, before re-sumption of activities authorized-by a license issued under these L
I regulations, an authorized representative of the facility licensee shall certify that the qualifications and status of the licensee are current and valid, and that the licensee has completed a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of shift functions under the direction of the operator or senior operator, as appropriate, and in the position to which the individual licensee will be. assigned.
For licenses limited to fuel Enclosure A 16' e
[7590-01]
4 handling, one supervised shift is sufficie'nt.
Certification shall be maintained at the facility.
~
The revision in the wording of the rule was made so that it is no longer neces-sary to include the wording " actively and extensively engaged" under requali-1 fication.
A licensee can now maintain. licensed status by successfully complet-ing the facility licensee's NRC-approved requalification program and passing the requalification examinations and operating tests.
However, to return to active performance after a period of not participating on shift, the conditions of a license in S 55.53(f) must be met.
In this manner, a licensee without current knowledge of the facility would not be able to perform shift duties.
For test and research reactors, the requirements for " actively performing the functions of an operator or senior operator" would be met with a minimum of four hours per calendar quarter.
Similarly, under S 55.53(f), a minimum of six I
hours parallel work would be required to return to active status.
(3) Notification of the Commission.
Some commenters noted that the Commission had no need to know about the criminal conviction of a licensee.
- However, S 55.53(g) is intended to cover criminal behavior.
NRC is interested in felo-
"E nious criminal convictions of a licensee.
The NRC considers that there may be a relationship between conviction for a felony and job performance.
G.
Expiration Currently, licenses expire after two years.
To lessen the paperwork burdens of facility licensees and the NRC, a five year expiration was proposed.
Many commenters suggested that the proposed five year expiration and renewal of licenses be adjusted to meet the biennial medical examination requirements.
The renewal cycle has been changed and licenses will now expire after 6 years.
H.
dequalification and Renewal l-j (1) Requalification program and examination content.
A great many commenters were unclear about the relationship of the NRC requalification requirements and performance-based training programs.
Moreover, many commenters urged Enclosure A 17 es m
en-m.,~
,,+-nw..--~
,,.r,-,
-,---n_n,-
,a.
[7590-01]
more flexibility in the requalification cycle and more clarity in the program content requirements.
Although the requirement for NRC approval of requalification programs will re-main, the list of content areas under SS 55.41, 55.43 and 55.45 will be refer-enced in S 55.59 to clarify the issue of examination and operating test content.
In addition, S 55.59(c) content requirements (formerly Appendix A to 10 CFR 55) can be met with a performance-based program for a facility as approved by the NRC. In its Final Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, the Commission endorsed industry-accredited programs as perfor-mance based. The frequency of the comprehensive requalification written exami-nation has been changed to a maximum of every 2 years and of the requalification operating test to once a year.
The requalificution program must be conducted for a continuous period not to exceed 24 months.
The specific cycle will be approved by the NRC as part of each facility's training program.
(2) " Actively and extensively engaged." As explained above, many commenters were concerned with the implementation of the provision for " actively and exten-sively engaged as an operator or senior operator" as it related to renewal.
This provision is deleted in the final rule.
This action complements the addi-
~E tions SS 55.53(e) and (f) to " Conditions of Licenses."
(3) Test and research reactors.
Several commenters were concerned that the requalification requirements for operators at this class of reactor were changed. The requirements in S 55.59(c)(7) continue the requirements of former Appendix A to 10 CFR 55 for test and research reactors.
No change in requirements is intended.
I.
Modification and Revocation of Licenses Some comments were received about the Commission's authority to modify and revoke licenses.
The Commission has the authority to modify, suspend or revoke a license under the Atomic Energy Act.
Moreover, inherent in the Commission's authority to modify, suspend, or revoke a license is its ability to place a licensed operator or senior operatcr under probation, if warranted.
I Enclosure A 18-
[7590-01]
J.
Editorial Many commenters had non-substantive editorial changes to suggest. These comments were reviewed by an NRC technical editor and incorporated as appropriate.
K.
Conformino Amendments A conforming amendment, 10 CFR 50.74, requires the facility licensee to notify the Commission of a change in operator status. -This amendment complements S 55.53(g).
L.
Revision to 10 CFR 50.54 and 10 CFR 50.34(b)(8)
Revisions have been made to 10 CFR 50.34(b)(8) and 50.54 to reflect the changes made to 10 CFR Part 55.
III.
REGULATORY ANALYSIS The regulatory analysis describes the values (benefits) and impacts (costs) of implementing the proposed regulations and guidance for operator licensing.
The accuracy of these estimates in the regulatory analysis is limited by the lack of extensive data on human perfbraance improvement associated with an im-proved licensing process. Where possible, quantitative measures were qualita-tively compared to related information from other sources for verification.
The full text of the regulatory analysis on these amendments is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Chief, Operator Licensing Branch, telephone:
(301) 492-4868.
IV.
BACKFIT ANALYSIS The Commission has determinea that these rules are in response to Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and, therefore, must be exempt from the i
backfit rule 10 CFR S 50.109 (50 FR 38097).
1 Enclosure A 19 y=
w we,,-,,,r.---..www--*-e---w-
--c,-w-------
-w.-
e--
---e--,,--.-r-,.-~,-
- - - -, --,r-wg e--w---em- - - -. - -.,--m
,eo.-----e--ww,ww---w-y-wee,_w
[7590-01]
r V.
REGULATORY GUIDES s
Three regulatory guides were published in draft form for public comment'in conjunction with the proposed rule.
These guides were intended to' provide guid-ance on acceptable methods of implementing the revisions to the regulations.
As a result of public comment and additional staff review, these three guides I
are being issued in final form:
L (1)
R.G. 1.134, Revision 2, " Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel for i
Nuclear Power Plants."
(2)' R.G. 1.149, Revision 2, " Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Examinations."
~
(3)
R.G.1.8, Revision 2, " Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants."
Copies of these guides may be purchased from the Government Printing Office at the current GPO price.
Information on current GPO prices may be obtained L,
by contacting the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, l
Post Office Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082, telephone (202)275-2060 or (202)275-2171.
VI.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION The NRC has determined that this regulation is the type of action described i
in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1).
Therefore, neither an environmen-j tal impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this regulation.
i VII.
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject i
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These paper-work requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-0018.
1 J
20 Enclosure A L
[7590-01]
VIII.
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY CERTIFICATION 4
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Commission hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The conforming amendment to 10 CFR Part 50 and the revision of 10 CFR Part 55 affect primarily the companies that own and operate light-water nuclear power reactors and the vendors of those reactors. They also affect individuals licensed as operators at these companies.
Neither the companies that own and operate reactors nor these indi-viduals fall within the scope of the definition of "small entity" set forth in Section 501(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, NRC's Size Standards adopted December 9, 1985 (50 FR 50241), or the Small Business-Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121.
IX.
LIST OF SUBJECTS 10 CFR Part 50 Antitrust, classified information, fire prevention, incorporation by reference intergovernmental relations, nuclear power plants and reactors, 1
penalty, radiation protection, reactor siting criteria, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 55 Manpower training programs, nuclear power plants and reactors, penalty, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, j
as amended,' the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 and 10 CFR Part 50.
I Enclosure A 21
[7590-01]
PART 55 - OPERATORS' LICENSES 1.
10 CFR Part 55 is revised to read as follows:
Subpart A -- General Provisions Sec.
55.1 Purpose.
55.2 Scope.
55.3 License requirements.
55.4 Definitions.
55.5 Communications.
55.6 Interpretations.
55.7 Additional requirements.
55.8 Information collection requirements:
OMB approval.
Subpart B -- Exemptions 4
55.11 Specific exemptions.
55.13 General exemptions.
- I Subpart C -- Medical Requirements 55.21 Medical examination.
55.23 Certification.
55.25 Incapacitation because of disability or illness.
55.27 Documentation.
l l_,
Subpart 0 -- Applications t >
55.31 How to apply.
l 55.33 Disposition of an initial application.
55.35 Re-applications.
Subpart E -- Written Examinations and Ooeratina Tests l
l 55.41 Written examination: Operators, l
55.43 Written examination: Senior Operators.
55.45 Operating tests.
55.47 Waiver of examination and test requirements.
55.49 Integrity of examinations and tests.
Subpart F -- Licenses-.
l 55.51 Issuance of licenses.
55.53 Conditions of licenses.
l 55.55 Expiration.
l 55.57 Renewal of licenses.
55.59 Requalification.
Enclosure A 22 1
[7590-01]
4 Subpart G -- Modification and Revocation of Licenses 55.61 Modification and revocation of licenses.
Subpart H -- Enforcement 55.71 Violations.
AUTHORITY:. Secs. 107, 161, 182, 68 Stat. 939, 948, 953 as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 2232, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).
Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45 and 55.59 also issued under sec. 306, Pub.L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226).
Section 55.61 also issued under
~
secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).
l For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273)
SS 55.3, 55.21, 55.49 and 55.53 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as i
amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and SS 55.23, 55.25 and 55.53(f) are issued under.
l sec. 1610, 88 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
Subpart A -- General Provisions S 55.1 Purpose.
The regulations in this part (a) establish procedures and criteria for the is-suance of licenses to operators and senior operators of utilization facilities licensed pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or section 202 i
l of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and Part 50 of this chapter, (b) provide for the terms and conditions upon which the Commission will issue l
or modify these licenses, and (c) provide for the terms and conditions to main-tain and renew these licenses.
l l
$ 55.2 Scope.
The regulations in this part apply to --
i (a) Any individual who manipulates the controls of ahy utilization facility i
licensed pursuant to Part 50 of this chapter, and Enclosure A 23
[7590-01]
(b) Any individual designated by a facility licensee to be responsible for di-recting any licensed activity of a licensed operator.
S 55.3 License requirements.
A person must be authorized by a license issued by the Commission to perform the function of an operator or a senior operator as defined in this part.
S 55.4 Definitions.
1 As used in this part:
"Act" means the At'omic Energy Act of 1954, including any amendments to the Act.
" Actively performing the functions of an operator or senior operator" means that an individual has a position on the shift crew that requires the individual
~
to be licensed as defined in the facility's technical specifications, and that the individual carries out and is responsible for the duties covered by that position.
" Commission" means the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or its. duly authorized representatives.
" Controls" when used with respect to a nuclear reactor means apparatus and mecha-nisms the manipulation of which directly affects the reactivity or power level of the reactor.
" Facility" means any utilization facility as defined in Part 50 of this chapter.
In cases for which a license is issued for operation of two or more facilities,
" facility" means all facilities identified in the license.
" Facility licensee" means an applicant for or holder of a license for a facility.
" Licensee" means an individual licensed operator or senior operator.
Enclosure A 24
[7590-01]
" Operator" means any individual licensed under this part to manipulate a con-trol of a facility.
" Performance testing" means testing conducted to verify a simulation facility's performance as compared to actual or predicted reference plant performance.
" Physician" means an individual licensed by a State or territory of the United States, the District of Columbia or the Connonwealth of Puerto Rico to dispense drugs in the practice of medicine.
" Plant-referenced simulator" means a simulator modeling the systems of the ref-erence plant wit'h which the operator interfaces in the control room, including operating consoles, and which permits use of the reference plant's procedures.
A plant-referenced simulator demonstrates expected plant response to operator input, and to normal, transient, and accident conditions to which the simulator has been designed to respond.
" Reference plant" means the specific nuclear power plant from which a simulation facility's control room configuration, system control arrangement, and design data are derived.
" Senior operator" means any individual licensed under this part to manipulate the controls of a facility and to direct the licensed activities of licensed operators.
" Simulation facility" means one or more of the following components, alone or in combination, used for the partial conduct of operating tests for operators, senior operators, and candidates:
(1) the plant, (2) a plant-referenced simu-lator, (3) another simulation device.
l
" Systems approach to training" means a training program that includes the following five elements:
1 (1)
Systematic analysis of the jobs to be performed.
l l
l Enclosure A 25
[7590-01]
(2)
Learning objectives derived from the analysis which describe desired performance after training.
(3)
Training design and implementation based on the learning objectives.
(4)
Evaluation of trainee mastery of the objectives during training.
(5)
Evaluation and revision of the training based on the performance of trained personnel in the job setting.
" United States," when used in a geographical sense, includes Puerto Rico and all territories and possessions of the United States.
5 55.5 Communications.
(a) Except as provided under a regional licensing program identified in para--
graph (b) of this section, an applicant or licensee or facility licensee shall submit any communication or report concerning the regulations in this part and shall submit any application filed under these regulations to the Commission as follows:
6 4
(1) By mail addressed to--Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, or (2) By delivery in person to the Commission offices at--
(i) 1717 H Street NW., Washington, D.C. or (ii) 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, f
(b)
(1) The Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has delegated to the Regional Administrators of Regions I, II, III, IV, and V authority and responsibility pursuant to the regulations in this part for the l
issuance and renewal of licenses for operators and senior operators of nuclear reactors licensed under 10 CFR Part.50 and located in these regions.
i i
Enclosure A 26
[7590-01]
(2) Any application for a license or license renewal filed under the regu-lations in this part involving a nuclear reactor licensed under 10 CFR Part 50 and any related inquiry, communication, information, or report must be submitted by mail or in person to the Regional Administrator.
The Regional Administrator or the Administrator's designee will transmit to the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation any matter that is not within the scope of the Regional Administrator's delegated authority.
(i)
If the nuclear reactor is located in Region I, submission must be made to the Regional Administrator, Region I, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406.
l (ii) If the nuclear reactor is located in Region II, submission must be made to the Regional Administrator, Region II, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 101 Marietta Street, Suite 2900, Atlanta,
{
Georgia 30303.
(iii) If the nuclear reactor is located in Region III, submission must be made to the Regional Administrator, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 799 Roosevelt Road, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137.
(iv)
If the nuclear reactor is located in Region IV, submission must be made to the Regional Administrator, Region IV, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000, Arlington, Texas 76011.
(v)
If the nuclear reactor is located in Region V, submission must l
be made to the Regional Administrator, Region V, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210, Walnut Creek, California 94596.
$ 55.6 Interpretations.
Except as specifically authorized by the Commission in writing,' no interpreta-tion of the meaning of the' regulations in this part by any officer or employee of the Commission other than a written interpretation by the General Counsel will be recognized to be binding upon the Commission.
Enclosure A 27
[7590-01]
- S 55.7 Additional requirements.
The Commission may, by rule, regulation, or order, impose upon any licensee such requirements, in addition to those established in the regulations in this part, as it deems appropriate or necessary to protect health and to minimize danger.to life or property.
$ 55.8 Information collection requirements:
OMB approval.
(a) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this part to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained in this part under control number 3150-0018.
'I (b) The approved information cgliection requirements contained in this part appear in $$ 55.45, 55.53, and S 55.59.
(c) Thispartcontainsinformittioncollectionrequirementsinadditionto those approved under the control number specified in paragraph (a) of this sec-T tion.
These information collection requirements and the control numbers under which they are approved are as follows:
(1) In $$ 55.23, 55.25, 55.27, 55.31, Form NRC-396 is approved under control number 3150-0024.
(2) In $$ 55.31, 55.35, 55.47, and 55.57, Form NRC-398 is approved under control number 3150-0090.
(3) In S 55.45, Form NRC-474 is approved under control number 3150-0138.
l Subpart B -- Exemptions
$ 55.11 Specific exemptions.
The Commission may, upon application by an interested person, or upon its own i
initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property and are otherwise in the public interest.
Enclosure A 28
[7590-01]
=
S 55.13 General exemptions.
The regulations in this part do not require a license for an individual who --
(a) Under the direction and in the presence of a licensed operator or senior operator, manipulates.the controls of --
(1) A research or training reactor as part of the individual's training as a student or (2) A facility as a part of the individual's training in a facility licensee's training program as approved by the Commission to qualify for an operator license under this part.
(b) Under the direction and in the presence of a licensed senior operator, I
manipulates the controls of a facility to load or unload the fuel into, out of, or within the reactor vessel.
Subpart C -- Medical Requirements T
$ 55.21 Medical examination.
An applicant for a license shall have a medical examination by a physician.
A licensee shall have a medical examination by a physician every two years.
The physician shall determine that the applicant or licensee meets the requirements of 9 55.33(a)(1).
I S 55.23 Certification.
To certify the medical fitness of the applicant, an authorized representative of the facility licensee shall complete and sign Form NRC-396, " Certification of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee," available from Publication Ser-vices Section, Document Management Branch, Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555 and submit it to the appropriate Regional Administrator as specified in S 55.5(b).
Enclosure A 29
,,,--,,,,-~n,--
w
---,w,
-,wm----,,my, gv,,
e--,
w,--
w-m,-,.ww ee r-
-p-
.------------~we y---
--w,.
[7590-01]
(a) Form NRC-396 must certify that a physician has conducted the medical ex-amination of the applicant as required in S 55.21.
(b) When the certification requests a conditional license based on medical evidence, the medical evidence must be submitted on NRC Form 396 to the Com-mission and the Commission then makes a determination in accordance with S 55.33.
S 55.25 Incapacitation because of disability or illness.
If, during the term of the license, the licensee develops a physical or mental condition that causes the licensee to fail to meet the requirements of 9 55.21 of this part, the' facility licensee shall notify the Commission within 30 days f
of learning of the diagnosis.
For conditions for which a conditional license (as described in S 55.33(b) of this part) is requested, the facility licensee shall provide medical certification on Form NRC 396 to the Commission (as
~
described in S 55.23 of this part).
S 55.27 Documentation.
The facility licensee shall document and maintain the results of medical quali-fications data, test results, and each operator's or senior operator's medical-history for the current license period and provide the documentation to the Commission upon request.
The facility licensee shall retain this documentation while an individual performs the functions of an operator or senior operator.
Subpart 0 -- Applications S 55.31 How to apply.
(a) The applicant shall:
(1) Complete Form NRC-398, " Personal Qualification Statement - Licensee,"
available from Publication Services Section, Document Management Branch, Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; Enclosure A 30
[7590-01]
(2) File an original and two copies of Form NRC-398, together with the information required in paragraphs-(a)(3), (4), (5) and (6) of this section, with the appropriate Regional Admini:strator; F
t (3) Submit a written request from an authorized representative of the facility licensee by which the applicant will be employed that the written examination and operating test be administered to the applicant; (4) Provide evidence that the applicant has successfully completed the facility licensee's requirements to be licensed as an operator or senior operator and of the facility 1icensee's need for an operator
~
or a senior operator to perform assigned duties.
An authorized repre-sentative of the facility licensee shall certify this evidence on Form NRC-398. This certification must include details of the appli-i I cant's qualifications, and details on courses of instruction adminis-i tered by the facility licensee, and describe the nature of the train-ing received at the facility, and the startup and shutdown experience received.
In lieu of these details, the Commission may accept certi-fication that the applicant has successfully completed a Commission-7 approved training program that is based on a systems approach to training and that uses a simulation facility acceptable to the f~
Commission under 5 55.45(b) of this part; (5) Provide evidence that the applicant, as a trainee, has successfully l ~
manipulated the controls of the facility for which a license is sought.
At a minimum, five significant control manipulations must be performed which affect reactivity or power level.
For a facility that has not completed preoperational testing and initial operations as described in its Final Safety Analysis Report as amended and approved by the Commission, the Commission may accept evidence of satisfactory per-formance of simulated control manipulations as part of a Commission-l approved training program by a trainee on a simulation facility I
acceptable to the Commission under S 55.45(b) of this part.
For a i
facility which has (1) completed preoperational testing as described in its Final Safety Analysis Report as amended and approved.by the
(
Enclosure A 31
~
N
[7590-01]*
Commission, and (2) is in an extended. shutdown which precludes manipu-lation of the control of the facility in the control room, the Commission may process the-application and may administer the written examination and operating test required by $$ 55.41 or.55.43 and i
55.45 of this part, but may not issue the license until the required evidence of control manipulations is supplied.
For licensed opera-tors applying for a senior operator license, certification that the operator has successfully operated the controls of the facility as a licensed operator shall be accepted; and (6) Provide certification by the facility licensee of medical condition and general health on Form NRC-396, to comply.with $$ 55.21, 55.23 and 55.33(a)(1).
(b) The Commission may at any time after the application has been filed, and before the license has expired, require further information under oath or af--
firmation in order to enable it to determine whether to grant or deny the ap-plication or whether to revoke, modify, or suspend the license.
(c) An applicant whose application has been denied because of a medical condi-
- "i tion or general health may submit a further medical report at any time as a supplement to the application.
~
i (d) Each application and statement must contain complete and accurate disclo-sure as to all matters required to be disclosed.
The applicant shall sign statements required by paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section, t
8 55.33 Disposition of an initial application.
l (a) Requirements for the approval of an initial application.
The Commission-will approve an initial application for a license pursuant to the regulations in this part, if it finds that --
J (1) Health.
The applicant's medical condition and general health will not adversely affect the performance of assigned operator job duties c
i Enclosure A 32
[7590-01].
or cause operational errors endangering public health and safety.
The Commission will base its finding upon the certification by the facility licensee as detailed in S 55.23.
(2) Written examination and operating test.
The applicant has passed the requisite written examination and operating test in accordance with
$$ 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and 55.45.
These examinations and. tests determine whether the applicant for an operator's license has learned to operate a facility competently and safely, and additionally, in the case of a senior operator, whether the applicant has learned to direct the licensed activities of licensed operators competently and safely.
(b) Conditional license.
If an applicant's general medical condition does not meet the minimum standards under S 55.33(a)(1) of this part,' the Commission may approve the application and include conditions in the license to accommodate the medical defect.
The Commission will consider the recommendations and sup-porting evidence of the facility licensee and of the examining physician (provided on Form NRC-396) in arriving at its decision.
!g 5 55.35 Re-applications.
(a) An applicant whose application for a license has been denied because of
(
failure to pass the written examination or operating test, or both, may file a new application two months after the date of denial.
The application must l
be submitted on Form NRC-398 and include a statement signed by an authorized representative of the facility licensee by whom the applicant will be employed that states in detail the extent of the applicant's additional training since the denial and certifies that the applicant is ready for re examination.
An applicant may file a third application six months after the date of denial of the second application, and may file further successive applications two years after the date of denial of each prior application.
The applicant shall submit each successive application on Form NRC-398 and include a statement of additional training.
l Enclosure A 32
. ~ _,.
[7590-01],
(b) An applicant who has passed either the written examination or operating test and failed the other may request in a new application on Form NRC-398 to be excused from re-examination on the portions of the examination or test which the applicant has passed.
The Commission may in its discretion grant the re-quest, if it determines that sufficient justification is presented.
Subpart E - Written Examinations and Operating Tests G 55.41 Written examination:
Operators.
(a) Content.
The written examination for an operator will contain a represen-tative selection of questions on the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform licensed operator duties.
The knowledge, skills, and abilities will be identified, in part, from learning objectives derived from a systematic analysis of licensed operator duties performed by each facility licensee and contained in its training program and from information in the Final Safety Analysis Report, system description manuals and operating procedures, facility license and license amendments, Licensee Event Reports, and other materials requested from the facility licensee by the Commission.
5 (b) The written examination for an operator for a facility will include a representative sample from among the following 14 items, to the extent applicable to the facility:
(1) Fundamentals of reactor theory, including fission process, neutron multiplication, source effects, control rod effects, criticality in-dications,reactivitycoefficients,andgoisoneffects.
(2) General design features of the core, including core structure, fuel elements, control rods, core instrumentation, and coolant flow.
(3) Mechanical components and design features of the reactor primary system.
(4) Secondary coolant and auxiliary systems that affect the facility.
Enclosure A 33
[7590-01]
a (5)- Facility operating characteristics during steady state and transient conditions, including coolant chemistry, causes and effects of tem-perature, pressure and reactivity changes, effects of load changes, and operating limitations and reasons for these operating characteristics.
(6) Design, components, and functions of reactivity control mechanisms and instrumentation.
(7) Design, components, and functions of control and safety systems, in-cluding instrumentation, signals, interlocks, failure modes, and au-tomatic and manual features.
(8) Components, capacity, and functions of emergency systems.
(9) Shielding, isolation, and containment design features, including ac-cess limitations.
(10) Administrative, normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures for the facility.
T (11) Purpose and operation of radiation monitoring systems, including alarms and survey equipment.
(12) Radiological safety principles and procedures.
(13) Procedures and equipment available for handling and disposal of ra-i dioactive materials and effluents.
(14) Principles of heat transfer thermodynamics and fluid mechanics.
- S 55.43 Written examination:
Senior operators.
(a) Content.
The written examination for a senior operator will contain a representative selection of questions on the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform licensed senior operator duties.
The knowledge, skills, and Enclosure A 34
[7590-01].
abilities will be identified, in part, from learning objectives derived from a systematic analysis of licensed senior operator duties performed by each facility licensee and contained in its training program and from information in the Final Safety Analysis Report, system description manuals and operating procedures, facility license and license amerdments, Licensee Event Reports, and other mater-ials requested from the facility licensee by the Commission.
(b) The written examination for a senior operator for a facility will include a representative sample from among the following seven items and the 14 items specified in S 55.41 of this part, to the extent applicable to the facility:
(1) Conditions and limitations in the facility license.
(2) Facility operating limitations in the technical specifications and their bases.
(3) Facility licensee procedures required to obtain authority for design and operating changes in the facility.
(4) Radiation hazards that may arise during normal and abnormal situa-tions, including maintenance activities and various contamination conditions.
l 1
(5) Assessment of facility conditions and selection of appropriate proce-dures during normal, abnormal, and emergency situations.
(6) Procedures and limitations involved in initial core loading, altera-tions in core configuration, control rod programming, and determina-tion of various internal and external effects on core reactivity.
(7) Fuel handling facilities and procedures.
S 55.45 Operating tests.
(a) Content.
The operating tests administered to applicants for operator and senior operator licenses in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section Enclosure A 35
[7590-01]
are generally similar in scope.
The content will be identified, in part, from learning objectives derived from a systematic analysis of licensed operator or senior operator duties performed by each facility licensee and contained in its training program and from information in the Final Safety Analysis Report, system description manuals and operating procedures, facility license and license amend-ments, Licensee Event Reports, and other materials requested from the facility licensee by the Commission.
The operating test, to the extent applicable, re-quires the applicant to demonstrate an understanding of and the ability to per-form the actions necessary to accomplish a representative sample from among the following 13 items:
(1) Perform pre-startup procedures for the facility, including operation of those controls associated with plant equipment that could affect reactivity.
i (2) Manipulate the console controls as required to operate the facility j
between shutdown and designated power levels.
(3) Identify annunciators and condition-indicating signals and perform appropriate remedial action where appropriate.
5 (4) Identify the instrumentation systems and the significance of facility instrument readings.
(5) Observe and safely control the operating behavior characteristics of the facility.
(6) Perform control manipulations required to obtain desired operating results during normal, abnormal, and emergency situations.
(7) Safely operate the facility's heat removal systems, including primary coolant, emergency coolant, and decay heat removal systems, and identify the relation of the proper operation of these systems to the 4
i operation of the facility.
l l
Enclosure A 36
- - = -
i
[7590-01]-
(8) Safely operate the facility's auxiliary and emergency systems, includ--
ing operation of those controls associated with plant equipment that could affect reactivity or the-release of radioactive materials to the environment.
(9) Demonstrate or describe the use and function of the facility's radia-
' tion monitoring systems, including fixed radiation monitors and alarms, 1
portable survey instruments, and personnel monitoring equipment.
(10) Demonstrate knowledge of significant radiation hazards, including per-missible levels in excess of those authorized, and ability to perform other proce'dures to reduce excessive levels of radiation and to guard against personnel exposure.
(11) Demonstrate knowledge of the emergency plan for the facility, includ-
?
ing, as appropriate, the operator's or senior operator's responsi-bility to decide whether the plan should be executed and the duties under the plan assigned.
(12) Demonstrate the knowledge and ability as appropriate to the assigned position,.to assume the responsibilities associated with the safe operation of the facility.
(13) Demonstrate the applicant's ability to function within the control l'
room team as appropriate to the assigned position, in such a way j
that the facility licensee's procedures are adhered to and that the limitations in its license and amendments are not violated.
(b)
Implementation (1) Administration - The operating test will be administered in a plant walkthrough and in either --
(i)
A simulation facility which the Commission has approved for use after application has been made by the facility licensee, or Enclosure A 37
[7590-01]
(ii)
A simulation facility consisting solely of a plant-referenced simulator which has been certified to the Commission by the facility licensee.
(2) Schedule for Facility Licensees (i)
Within one year after the effective date of this part, each facility licensee which proposes to use a simulation facility pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, except test and research reactors, shall submit a plan by which its simu-lation facility will be developed and by which an application will be submitted for its use.
(ii)
Those facility licensees which propose to conform with para-graph (b)(1)(i) of this section, not later than 42 months after the effective date of this rule, shall submit an application for use of this simulation facility to the Commission, in accordance with paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.
(iii) Those facility licensees which propose to conform with para-7 graph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, not later than 46 months after the effective date of this rule, shall submit a certifi-cation for use of this simulation facility to the Commission on Form NRC-474, " Simulation Facility Certification," avail-able from Publication Services Section, Document Management Branch, Division of Technical Information and Document Control, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section.
1 (iv)
The simulation facility portion of the operating test will not be administered on other than a certified or an approved simu-lation facility after (insert date four years after the effec-tive date of the rule).
Enclosure A 38
[7590-01].
(3) Schedule for Facility Applicants (i)
For facility licensee applications after the effective date of this rule, except test and research reactors, the applicant shall submit a plan which identifies whether its simulation facility will conform with paragraph (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section at the time of application.
(ii)
Those applicants which propose to conform with para-graph (b)(1)(i) of this section, not later than 180 days before the date when the applicant proposes that the Commission conduct operating tests, shall submit an application for use of its simulation facility to the NRC, in accordance with
~
paragraph (b)(4)(1) of this section.
(iii) Those-applicants which propose to conform with para '
graph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, not later than 60. days before the date when the applicant proposes that NRC conduct operating tests, shall submit a certification for use of its simulation facility to the Commission on Form NRC-474, in accordance with paragraph (b)(5)(i) of this section.
s (4) Application for and Approval of Simulation Facilities - Those facility licensees which propose, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, to use a simulation facility that is other than solely a plant-referenced simulator as defined in S 55.4 shall --
(i)
In accordance with the plan submitted pursuant to para-graph (b)(2)(1) or (b)(3)(i) of this section, as applicable submit an application for approval of the simulation facility to the Commission, in accordance with the schedule in para-graph (b)(2)(ii) or (b)(3)(ii) of this section, as appropriate.
This application must include:
Enclosure A 39
[7590-01]
(A) A statement that the simulation facility meets the plan submitted to the Commission pursuant to para-graph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(3)(i) of this section, as applicable; (B) A description of the components of the simulation facility which are intended to be used for each part of the operat-ing test; and (C) A description of the performance tests conducted as part of the application, and the results of such tests.
(ii)
The Commission will approve a simulation facility if it finds
~
that the simulation facility and its proposed use are suitable for the conduct of operating tests at the facility licensee's reference plant, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section.
(iii) Submit, every four years on the anniversary of the application, a report to the Commission which identifies any uncorrected performance test failures, and submit a schedule for correc-tion of these performance test failures, if any.
(iv)
Retain the results of the performance tests conducted until four years after the submittal of the application under para-graph (b)(4)(i), each report pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(iii),
or any reapplication under paragraph (b)(4)(vi) of this section, as appropriate.
(v)
If the Commission determines, based upon the results of per-formance testing, that an approved simulation facility does not meet the requirements of this part, the simulation facility may not be used to conduct operating tests.
(vi)
If the Commission determines, pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(v) of this section, that an approved simulation facility does not Enclosure A 40
[7590-01]
meet the requirements of this part, the facility licensee may again' submit an application for approval.
This application must include a description of corrective actions taken, includ-ing results of completed performance testing as required for approval.
(vii) Any application or report submitted pursuant to para-graphs (b)(4)(i), (b)(4)(iii) and (b)(4)(vi) of this section must include a description of the performance testing completed for the simulation facility, and must include a description of performance tests, if different, to be conducted on the simula-tion facility during the subsequent four year period, and a schedule for the conduct of approximately 25 percent of the performance tests per year for the subsequent four years.
(5) Certification of Simulation Facilities - Those facility licensees which propose, in accordance with paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section, to use a simulation facility consisting solely of a plant-referenced simulator as defined in $ 55.4, shall --
7 (i)
Submit a certification to the Commission that the simulation facility meets the Commission's regulations.
The facility licensee shall provide this certification on Form NRC-474 in accordance with the schedule in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) or (b)(3)(iii) of this section, as applicable.
(ii)
Submit, every four years on the anniversary of the certifi-cation, a report to the Commission which identifies any uncor-rected performance test failures, and submit a schedule for correction of such performance test failures, if any.
j (iii) Retain the results of the performance tests conducted until i
four years after the submittal of certification under para-l graph (b)(5)(i), each report pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(ii),
l or recertification under paragraph (b)(5)(v) of this section, as applicable.
1 Enclosure A 41 4
[7590-01]
.(iv)
'If the. Commission determines, based upon the results of perfor-mance testing, that a certified simulation facility.does not meet the requirements of this part, the simulation facility may not be used to conduct operating tests.
(v)
If the Commission determines, pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of this section, that a certified simulation facility does not meet the requirements of this part, the facility licensee may submit a recertification to the Commission on Form NRC-474.
This recertification must include a description of corrective actions taken, including results of completed performance test-ing as required for racertification.
(vi)
Any certification, report, or recertification submitted pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(i), (b)(5)(fi), or (b)(5)(v) of this section I
must incTude a description of performance testing completed for the simulation facility, and must include a description of the performance tests, if different, to be conducted on the simulation facility during the subsequent four year period, and a schedule for the conduct of approximately 25 percent of T
the performance tests per year for the subsequent four years.
~
g 55.47 Waiver of examination and test requirements (a) On application, the Commission may waive any or all of the requirements for a written examination and operating test, if it finds that the applicant--
(1) Has had extensive actual operating experience at a comparable facility, as determined by the Commission, within two years before the date of application; (2) Has discharged his or her responsibilities competantly and safely and is capable of continuing to do so; and (3) Has learned the operating procedures for and is qualified to operate competently and safely the facility designated in the application.
Enclosure A 42
[7590-01]
(b) The Commission may accept as proof of the applicant's past performance a certification of an authorized representative of the facility licensee or of a holder of an authorization by which the applicant was previously en-ployed.
The certification must contain a description of the applicant's operating experience, including an approximate number of hours the applicant operated the controls of the facility, the duties performed, and the extent of the applicant's responsibility.
(c) The Commission may accept as proof of the applicant's current qualifications a certification of an authorized representative of the facility licensee or of a holder of an authorization where the applicant's services will be utilized.
6 55.49 Integrity of examinations and tests.
Applicants, licensees, and facility licensees shall not engage in any activity that compromises the integrity of any application, test, or examination required by this part.
Subpart F -- Licenses 5 55.51 Issuance of Licenses.
Operator and senior operator ifcenses.
If the Commission determines that an applicant for an operator license or a senior operator license meets the require-ments of the Act and its regulations, it will issue a license in the form and containing any conditions and limitations it considers appropriate and necessary.
5 55.53 Conditions of licenses.
Each license contains and is subject to.the following conditions whether stated in the license or not:
(a) Neither the license nor any right under the license may be assigned or otherwise transferred.
Enclosure A 43
[7590-01]
i
}
(b) The license is limited to the facility for which it is issued.
1 l
(c) The license is limited to those controls of the facility specified in the license.
(d) The license is subject to, and the licensee shall observe, all applicable
)
rules, regulations, and orders of the Commission.
j (e) If a licensee has not been actively performing the functions of an oper-ator or senior operator, the licensee.may not resume activities authorized by j
a license issued under this part except as permitted by paragraph (f) of this l
section.
To maintain active status, the licensee shall actively perform the
{
functions of an operator or senior operator on a minimum of seven 8-hour or five 12-hour shifts per calendar quarter.
For test and research reactors, the j
licensee shall actively perform the functions of an operator or senior operator j.
for a minimum of four hours per calendar quarter.
!~
l (f)
If paragraph (e) of this section is not met, before resumption of functions l
authorized by a license issued under this part, an authorized representative of l
the facility licensee shall certify the following:
L l*
(1) That the qualifications and status of the licensee are current and 1
l valid; and I
l (2) That the licensee has completed a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of shift func-l tions under the direction of an operator or senior operator as appro-fl priate and in the position to which the individual will be assigned, The 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> must have included a complete tour of the plant and all l
required shift turnover procedures.
For senior operators limited to fuel handling under paragraph (c) of this section, one shift must j
have been completed.
For test and research reactors, a minimum of six j
hours must have been completed, i
i (g) The licensee shall notify the Commission within 30 days atiout a conviction j
for a felony.
i 1
Enclosure A 44
[7590-01].
(h) The licensee shall complete a requalification program as described by
$ 55.59.
(1) The licensee shall have a biennial medical examination.
(j) The licensee shall comply with any other conditions that the Commission may impose to protect health or to minimize danger to life or property.
S 55.55 Expiration.
l (a) Each operator license and senior operator license expires six years after the date of issuance, upon termination of employment with the facility licensee, or upon determination by the facility licensee that the licensed individual no longer needs to maintain a license.
I (b)
If a licensee files an application for renewal or an upgrade of an exist-ing license on Form NRC-398 at least 30 days before the expiration of the ex-isting license, it does not expire until disposition of the application for renewal or for an upgraded license has been finally determined by the Commis-sion.
Filing by mail or telegram will be deemed to be complete at the time the i
application is deposited in the mail or with a telegraph company.
S 55.57 Renewal of licenses.
(a) The applicant for renewal of a license shall --
(1) Complete and sign Form NRC-398 and include the number of the license for which renewal is sought.
(2) File an original and.two copies of Form NRC-398 with the appropriate Regional Administrator specified in S 55.5(b).
(3) Provide written evidence of the applicant's experience under the ex-isting license, the approximate number of hours that the licensee has operated the facility and the number of 8-hour or 12-hour shifts per calendar quarter; Enclosure A 45
[7590-01]
(4) Provide a statement by an authorized representative of the facility licensee that during the effective term of the current license the applicant has satisfactorily completed the requalification program for the facility for which operator or senior operator license renewal is sought.
(5) Provide evidence that the applicant has discharged the license re-sponsibilities competently and safely.
The Comission may accept as evidence of the applicant's having met this requirement a certificate of an authorized representative of the facility licensee or holder of an authorization by which the licensee has been employed.
(6) Provide certification by the facility licensee of medical condition and general health on Form NRC-396, to comply with 55 55.21, 55.23 and 55.27.
(b) The license will be renewed if the Commission finds that --
(1) The medical condition and the geperal health of the licensee continue to be such as not to cause operational errors that endanger public 7
health and safety.
The Comission will base this finding upon the certification by the facility licensee as described in S 55.23.
(2) The licensee --
(1)
Is capable of continuing to competently and safely assume licensed duties; (ii) Has successfully completed a requalification program that has been approved by the Commission as required by 5 55.59; and (iii) Has passed the requalification examinations and annual operating tests as required by 5 55.59.
Enclosure A 46
[7590-01) *
(3) There is a continued.need for a licensee to operate or for a senior operator to direct operators at the facility designated in the application.
1 (4) The past performance of the licensee has been satisfactory to the Commission.
In making its finding, the Commission will include in its evaluation information such as notices of violations or letters of reprimand in the licensee's docket.
5 55.59 Requalification.
(a) Reaualification requirements.
Each licensee shall --
(1) Successfully complete a requalification program developed by the facility licensee that has been approved by the Commission.
This pro-gram shall be conducted for a continuous period not to exceed 24 months in duration, i
(2) Pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an annual l
operating test.
i R
(1) The written examination will sample the items specified in
~
55 55.41 and 55.43 of this part, to the extent applicable to the facility, the licensee, and any limitation of the license under 5 55.53(c) of this part.
l (ii) The operating test will require the operator or senior operator i
to demonstrate an understanding of and the ability to perform the actions necessary to accomplish a comprehensive sample of items specified.in 5 55.45(a) (2) through (13) inclusive to the extent applicable to the facility.
(iii)
In Iteu of the Commission accepting a certification by the fa-cility licensee that the licensee has passed written examinations and operating tests administered by the facility licensee within its Commission-approved program developed by using a systems i
Enclosure A 47 l
[7590-01]
approach to training under paragraph (c) of this section, the Commission may administer a comprehensive requalification written examination and an annual operating test.
(b) Additional trainina.
If the requirements of paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) of this section are not met, the Commission may require the licensee to complete additional training and to submit evidence to the Commission of successful com-pletion of this training before returning to licensed duties.
(c) Requalification program requirements.
A facility licensee shall have a requalification program reviewed and approved by the Commission.
The requali-fication program must meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.
In lieu of paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, the Commission may approve a program developed by using a systems approach to training.
(1) Schedule.
The requalification program must be conducted for a con-tinuous period not to exceed two years, and upon conclusion must be promptly followed, pursuant to a continuous schedule, by successive requalification programs.
(2) Lectures.
The requalification program must include preplanned lec-
' tures on a regular and continuing basis throughout the license period in those areas where operator and senior operator written examinations and facility operating experience indicate that emphasis in scope and depth of coverage is needed in the following subjects:
(i)
Theory and principles of operation.
(ii)
General and specific plant operating characteristics.
(iii)
Plant instrumentation and control systems.
(iv)
Plant protection systems.
(v)
Engineered safety systems.
(vi)
Normal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures.
(vii)
Radiation control and safety.
(viii)
Technical specifications.
Enclosure A 48
(7590-01) '
(ix)
Applicable portions of Title 10, Chapter I, Code of Federal Regulations.
(3) On-the-job trainina. The requalification program must include on-the-job training so that --
(1) Each licensed operator of a utilization facility manipulates the plant controls and each licensed senior operator either manipu-lates the controls or directs the activities of individuals dur-ing plant control manipulations during the term of the licensed operator's or senior operator's license.
For reactor operators and senior operators, these manipulations must consist of the following control manipulations and plant evolutions if they are applicable to the plant design.
Items described in para-graphs (c)(3)(i) (A) through (L) of this section must be per-formed annually; all other items must be performed on a twu year cycle.
However, the requalification programs must contain a commitment that each individual shall perform or participate in a combination of reactivity control manipulations based on the availability of plant equipment and systems.
Those control
~*i, manipulations which are not performed at the plant may be per-formed on a simulator.
The use of the Technical Specifications
~
should be maximized during the simulator control manipulations.
Senior operator licensees are credited with these activities if they direct control manipulations as they are performed.
(A) Plant or reactor startups to include a range that roactiv-ity feedback from nuclear heat addition is noticeable and heatup rate is established.
(B) Plant shutdown.
(C) Manual control of steam generators or feedwater or both during startup and shutdown.
(0) Boration or dilution during power operation.
Enclosure A 49
[7590-01]
(E) Significant (>10 percent) power changes in manual rod control or recirculation flow.
(F) Reactor power change of 10 percent or greater where load change is performed with load limit control or where flux, temperature, or speed control is on manual (for HTGR).
(G) Loss of coolant, including --
Q), significant PWR steam generator leaks Q), inside and outside primary containment Q), large and small, including leak-rate determination M saturated reactor coolant response (PWR).
(H) Lossofinstrumentair(ifsimulatedplantspecific).
(1) Loss of electrical power (or degraded power sources).
~
(J) Loss of core coolant flow / natural circulation.
(K) Loss of feedwater (normal and emergency).
(L) Loss of service water, if required for safety.
(M) Loss of shutdown cooling.
(N) Loss of component cooling system or cooling to an individu-al component.
(0) Loss of normal feedwater or normal feedwater system failure.
(Q)
Loss of protective system channel.
Enclosure A 50
[7590-01] '
(R) Mispositioned control rod or rods (or rod drops).
(S)
Inability to drive control rods.
(T) Conditions requiring use of emergency boration or standby liquid control system.
(U) Fuel cladding failure or high activity in reactor coolant or offgas.
(V) Turbine or generator trip.
(W) Malfunction of an automatic control system that affects reactivity.
~
(X) Malfunction of reactor coolant pressure / volume control system.
(Y) Reactor trip.
(Z) Main steam line break (inside or outside containment).
(AA) A nuclear instrumentation failure.
(ii) Each licensed operttor and senior operator has demonstrated sat-isfactory understanding of the operation of the apparatus and mechanisms associated with the control manipulations in para-graph (c)(3)(1) of this section, and knows the operating proce-dures in each area for which the operator or senior operator is licensed.
(iii) Each licensed operator and senior operator is cognizant of fa-cility design changes, procedure changes, and facility license changes.
1 Enclosure A 51
[7590-01]
(iv) Each licensed operator and senior operator reviews the contents of all abnormal and emergency procedures on a regularly sched-uled basis.
(v) A simulator may be used in meeting the requirements of para-graphs (c)(3)(~i) and (3)(11) of this section, if it repro-duces the general operating characteristics of the facility involved and the arrangement of the instrumentation and controls of the simulator is similar to that of the facility involved.
If the simulator or simulation device is used to administer operating tests for a facility, as provided in S 55.45(b)(1),
the device approved to meet the requirements of $ 55.45(b)(1) must be used for credit to be given for meeting the requirements of paragraphs (c)(3)(1)(G through AA) of this section.
(4) Evaluation.
The requalification program must include --
(i) Comprehensive requalification written examinations and annual operating tests which determine areas in which retraining is needed to upgrade licensed operator and senior operator knowledge.
7 (ii) Written examinations which determine licensed operators' and
~
senior operators' knowledge of subjects covered in the requali-fication program and provide a basis for evaluating their knowl-edge of abnormal and emergency procedures.
(iii) Systematic observation and evaluation of the performance and competency of licensed operators and senior operators by super-visors and/or training staff members, including evaluation of actions taken or to be taken during actual or simulated abnormal and emergency procedures.
(iv) Simulation of emergency or abnormal conditions that may be ac-complished by using the control panel of the facility involved or by using a simulator.
Where the control panel of the facility is used for simulation, the actions taken or to be taken for the Enclosure A 52
[7590-01] '
emergency or abnormal condition shall' be discussed; actual manip-ulation of*the plant controls is not required.
If a simulator is used in meeting the requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section, it shall accurately reproduce the operating charac-
'teristics of the facility involved and the arrangement of the instrumentation and controls of the simulator shall closely parallel that of the facility involved.
After the provisions of 6 55.45(b) have been implemented at a facility, the certified or approved simulation facility must be used to comply with this paragraph.
(v) Provisions for each licensed operator and senior operator to participate in an accelerated requalification program where per-formance evaluations conducted pursuant to paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through (iv) of this section clearly indicate the need.
(5) Records.
The requalification program documentation must include the following:
(i) The facility licensee shall maintain records documenting the i
participation of each ifcensed operator and senior operator in the requalification program.
The records must contain copies of written examinations administered, the answers given by.the Itcensee, and the results of evaluations and documentation of operating tests and of any additional training administered in areas in which an operator or senior operator has exhibited deficiencies.
The facility licensee shall retain these records until the operator's or senior operator's license is renewed, j
(ii) Each record required by this part must be legible throughout the retention period specified by each Commission regulation.
The record may be the original or a reproduced copy or a microform 1'
provided that the copy or microform is authenticated by authorized personnel and that the microform is capable of producing a clear copy throughout the required retention period.
Enclosure A 53 nn--,-n~,,.n--,-
~ _ _ _
'[7590-01]
j (iii)
If there is a conflict between the Commission's regulations in j
this part, and any license condition, or other written Commission approval or authorization pertaining to the retention period for the same type of record, the retention period specified for these records by the regulations in this part apply unless the Commis-sion, pursuant to $ 55.11, grants a specific exemption from this record retention requirement.
I (6) Alternative trainina procrams.
The requirements of this section may j
be met by requalification programs conducted by persons other than the facility licensee if the requalification programs are similar to the program described in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this section i
and the alternative program has been approved by the Commission.
l (7) Applicability to research and test reactor facilities.
To accommodate I*
specialized modes of operation and differences in control, equipment, l
and operator skills and knowledge, the requalification program for j
each licensed operator and senior operator of a research reactor or test reactor facility must conform generally but need not be identical to the requalification program outlined in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section.
Significant deviations from the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section will be permitted only
].,
if supported by written justification and approved by the Commission.
l 1
i Subpart G -- Modification and Revocation of Licenses
$ 55.61 Modification and revocation of licenses.
l (a) The terms and conditions of all licenses are subject to amendment, revi-l sion, or modification by reason of rules, regulations, or orders issued in ac-cordance with the Act or any amendments thereto.
i (b) Any license may be revoked, suspended, or modified, in whole or in part:
I (1) For any material false statement in the application or in any state-i ment of fact required under section 182 of the Act, l!
Enclosure A 54
[7590-01] '
o (2) Because of conditions revealed by the application or statement of fact or any report, record, inspection or other means that would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an original application, (3) For willful violation of, or failure to observe any of the terms and conditions of the Act, or the license, or of any rule, regulation, or order of the Commission, or (4) For any conduct determined by the Commission to be a hazard to safe operation of the facility.
Subpart H -- Enforcement i
5 55.71 Violations.
[
O
~
(a) An injunction or other court order may be obtained prohibiting any viola-tion of any provision of:
(1) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; (2) Title II of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; or
~
(3) Any regulation or order issued under these Acts.
S (b) A court order may be obtained for the payment of a civil penalty imposed under section 234 of the Atomic Energy Act for violation of:
(1) Sections 53, 57, 62, 63, 81, 82, 101, 103, 104, 107, or 109 of the Atomic Energy Act; (2) Section 206 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974; (3) Any rule, regulation, or order issued under these Acts; (4) Any term, condition, or limitation of any license issued under these Acts; or Enclosure A 55 l
a
[7590-01]
(5) For any violation for which a license may be revoked under section 186 of the Atomic Energy Act.
(c) Any person who willfully violates any provision of the Atomic Energy Act or any regulation issued under the Act, including the regulations in this part, may be guilty of a crime and, upon conviction, may be punished by fine or im-prisonment, or both, as provided by law.
~i Enclosure A 56
[7590-01].
PART 50 -- DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 2.
The authority citation for Part 50 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY:
Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat. 936, 937, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2134, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846), unless otherwise4 noted.
Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).
Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2071, 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2133, 2239).
Section 50.78 also issued under sec. 122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).
Sections 50.80-50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).
Sec-I tions 50-100-50.102 also issued under sec. 186, 68 Stat.
955 (42 U.S.C. 2236).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273),
$5 50.10(a), (b), and (c), 50.44, 50.46, 50.48, 50.54, and 50.80(a) are issued under sec. 161b, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); $$ 50.10(b) and T
(c) and 50.54 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and $$ 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.70, 50.71, 50.72, 50.73, and '
50.78 are issued under sec. 161o, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).
3.
In S 50.34, paragraph (b)(8) is revised as follows:
$ 50.34 Contents of applications: technical information a
a a
a n
(b) ***
(8) A description and plans for implementation of an operator.requalification program.
The operator requalification program must as a minimum, meet the requirements for those programs contained in 5 55.59 of Part 55 of this chapter.
A A 2
A 2
Enclosure A 57
[7590-01]
4.
In $ 50.54, paragraphs (i) and (i-1) are revised to read as follows:
$ 50.54 Conditions of licenses.
A A
A A
A i
(i) Except as provided in S 55.13 of this chapter, the licensee may not permit the manipulation of the controls of any facility by anyone who is not a licensed operator or senior operator as provided in Part 55 of this chapter.
(1-1)Within three months after issuance of an operating license, the licensee j
shall have in effect an operator requalification program which must as a
},
minimum, meet the requirements of 5 55.59(c) of this chapter.
Notwith-standing the provisions of $ 50.59, the licensee may not, except as speci-fically authorized by the Commission decrease the scope of an approved I
operator requalification program.
A A
A A
A i
5.
Immediately following 5 50.73, " Licensee Event Report System," a new $ 50.74 is added as a conforming amendment to read as follows:
i
~
$ 50.74 Notification of change in operator or senior operator status.
Each licensee shall notify the Commission in accordance with 9 50.4 within 30 days of the following in regard to a licensed operator or senior operator:
(a) Permanent reassignment from the position for which the licensee has certi-fled the need for a licensed operator or senior operator under $ 55.31(a)(3) of j
this chapter; 1
Enclosure A 58
[7590-01]
(b) Termination of any operator or senior operator; (c) Disability or illness as described in S 55.25'of this chapter.
Dated at Washington, DC, this day of
, 19'6.
8 For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Comission.
I il j
I i
Enclosure A 59
G 1
I ENCLOSURE B RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE CHANGES TO 10 CFR 55 "i
m
\\
k h
5 I.
LIST OF COM4 ENTERS Letter Number Commenter 1
R. N. Meyer, Professional Reactor Operator Society 2
D.
E.- LaBarge, Professional Reactor Operator Society, Region I Office 3
N. S. Elliot, Babcock & Wilcox 4
L. S. Goodman, Lacrosse, WI 5
N. S. Elliot, American Nuclear Society 6
L. Roberts, Indian Point, NY 7
D. E. Howard, Toledo, OH 8
G. J. Vargo, Jr., Fulton, NY 9
R. Higgins, Region III 10 D. A. Dvorak, Oakdale, CT 11 R. C. Dawney, Hartsville, SC 12 E. J. Fuerst, Chicago, IL 13 J. T. Beckham, Jr., Georgia Power 14
- 0. R. Lee, Public Service Company of Colorado 15 M. D. Schultz, Northeast Utilities 16 M. Navarro, Avila Beach, CA 17 R. C. Kraemer, Northeast Utilities 18 J. N. Marquis, Los Altos, CA
~
19 R. J. Mette, Vista, CA 20 A. E. Bolon, University of Missouri-Rolla 21 R. E. Landrum, Antioch, IL 22 M. A. Perry, Big Lake, MN 23 G. L. Koester, Kansas Gas and Electric Company 24 D. J. Johnson, Russellville, AR 25 C. Barton, University of Missouri-Rolla q
26 L. L. Weckbaugh, Dunkirk, MD 27 B. D. Kenyon, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company 28 J. T. Eno:;, Arkansas Power & Light Company 29 M. Straka, University of Missouri-Rolla
' ~
30 E. Chatfield, Yankee Atomic Electric Company 31 T. C. Houghton, KMC, Inc.
32 H. B. Tucker, Duke Power Company 33 W. L. Stewart, Virginia Power 34 G. W. Beale, Wildwood, IL 35
- 0. W. Dixon, Jr., South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 36 W. H. Jens, Detroit Edison 37 R. W. Deutsch, General Physics Corporation 38 D. E. Geltz, Texas Engineering Experiment Station 39 M.0. Medford, Southern California Edison Company 40 W. L. Whittemore, GA Technologies, Inc.
41 J. W. Williams, Jr., Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
42 R. E. Helfrich, Yankee Atomic Electric Company 43 J. R. Thorpe, GPU Nuclear Corporation 44 G. R. Westafer, Florida Power Corporation.
45 R. L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District' 46 D. Musolf, Northern States Power Company 47 C. W. Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Corporation 48 P. M. Richardson, Public Service of New Hampshire l
Enclosure B 1
t I -
Letter Number Commenter 49 J. A. Tiernan, Baltimore Gas and Electric 50 L. Spalding, Address Unknown 51' J. W. Williams, Jr., Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
52 J. D. Shiffer, Pacific. Gas and Electric Company 53 T. G. Skaskal, Cleveland, WI 54 J. Baker, Benton City, WA 55 J. H. Schilling, Bay City, WI 56 N. W. Reynolds, Bishop, Lieberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 57 J. J. Carey, Duquesne Light 58 J. Doering, Jr., Philadelphia, PA 59 J. R. Hill, St. Leonard, MD.
60 B. D. Hiestand, St. Leonard, MD 61 J. H. Miller, Jr., Nuclear Utilities Management and Human Resources Committee 62 L. F. Dale, Mississippi Power & Light Company 63 J. B. Hudson, Cary, NC 64 C. M. Gray, Mishicot, WI 65 R. L. Wenderlich, Dunkirk, MD 66 W. D. Harrington, Boston Edison Company 67 G. Alexander, Commonwealth Edison j
68 J. Friedrichs, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 69 B. D. Withers, Portland General Electric Company 70 M. A. Kay, Reed College 71 W. A. Nichols, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company 72 A. E. Scherer, Combustion Engineering, Inc.
73 W. G. Smith, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company 74 J. Peterson, Professional Reactor Operator Society 75 T. C. Houghton, KMC, Inc.
76 R. W. Kober, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 77
- 8. G. Hooten, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 78 E. P. Rahe, Jr., Westinghouse Electric Corporation 79 H. J. Cato, Custom Training Programs 80 D. C. Hintz, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 81 W. G. Counsil and W. F. Fee, Northeast Utilities 82 S. R. Zimmerman, Carolina Power & Light Company 83 A. F. DiMeglio, Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission 84 J. M. Yoe, Lusby, MD 85 G. C. Sorensen, Washington Public Power Supply System 86 J. C. McKibben and D. M. Alger, University of Missouri 87 J. W. Hufham, Tennessee Valley Authority 88 L. Clark, Jr., Massachusetts Institute of Technology 89 W. J. Richards, American Nuclear Society 90 G. D. Whittier, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company 91 R. L. Mitt 1, Public Service Electric and Gas Company 92 D. L. Hubbard, Granbury, TX 93 W. G. Ruzicka, Union Carbide Corporation 94 M. Navarro, Avila Beach, CA 95 L. L. Weckbaugh, Dunkirk, MD 96:
L. L. Weckbaugh, Dunkirk, MD.
Enclosure B 2
=
Letter Number Commenter 97 B. R. Clements, Texas Utilities Generating Company 98 L. L. Weckbaugh, Dunkirk, MD 99 R. J. Kennedy, Northeast Utilities 100
- 0. W. Dixon, Jr., South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 101
-W. L. Whittemore, GA Technologies, Inc.
102 W. L. Whittemore, GA Technologies, Inc.
103 R. L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District 104 R. L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District 105 J. A. Tiernan, Baltimore Gas and Electric 106 J. A. Tiernan, Baltimore Gas and Electric 107 J. D. Shiffer, Pacific Gas and Electric Company 108 L. A. Spalding, Address Unknown 109 C. W. Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Company 110 C. W. Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Company 111 B. D. Hiestand, St. Leonard, MD 112 J. R. Hill, St. Leonard, MD 113 L. L. Weckbaugh, Dunkirk, MD 114 D. Musolf, Northern States Power Company 115 R. L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power Company 116 J. R. Hill, St. Leonard, MD 117 G. Alexander, Commonwealth Edison 118 R. L. Wenderlich, Dunkirk, MD 119 H. B. Tucker, Duke Power Company 120 M. R. Edelman, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company i
121 R. L. Jones, Perry, OH 122 B. R. Clements, Texas Utilities Generating Company 123 J. A. Tiernan, Baltimore Gas and Electric 124 R. P. Crouse,. Toledo Edison
,i 125 G. R. Westafer, Florida Power Corporation l
126 B. D. Kenyon, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company 127 W. L. Stewart, Virginia Power 128 J. M. Yoe, Lusby, MD
~
129 J. M. Yoe, Lusby, MD 130 W. J. Richards, American Nuclear Society 131 G. C. Sorenson, Washington Public Power Supply System 132 R.L. Mitti, Public Service Electric and Gas Company 133 C. W. Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Company 134 M. O. Medford, Southern California Edison Company 135 W. D. Harrington, Boston Edison Company Comments are referred to by two numbers.
The first number corresponds to the letter number and the second refers to the comment number within the letter.
For example, comment 2-1 refers to the first comment in letter number 2.
In Section II of this report, comments are grouped in general categories followed by the resolution to that series of comments.
An index of specific comments can be found in Section III.
l l
l Enclosure B 3
a II.
RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS TO 10 CFR 55, "0PERATORS' LICENSES" A.
General 1.
Comments 2-1, 8-1, 24-1, 32-1, 33-1, 48-1, 52-1, 53-1, 64-1, and 92-l' pro-vide general support for the proposed rule.
Resolution:
The comments have been noted.
2.
Comment 85-3 indicates that 10 CFR 55 relates not only to issuance of licenses, but to conditions _ required to maintain those licenses, including requalification, and recommends that S 55.1 be modified to indicate the full purpose of 10 CFR 55.
Resolution:
Agree.
S 55.1 has been modified to indicate the full pur-pose of 10 CFR 55.
3.
Many comments suggested changes or additions to 10 CFR 55.4, " Definitions."
Comments (a) through (s) refer to " simulation facilities."
a.
Comment 43-7 requests that the regulations more clearly indicate under what conditions a plant can be used as a " simulation facility" and, if it is used as such, how it will be used in administering the operating test.
l l
b.
Comments 5-9a, 19-42, 22-1, 30-10, 31-16, 31-17, 39-42, 45-16, 45-17, 46-16, 46-17, 56-6, 62-16, 62-17, and 74-5 object to the inclusion of the plant in the definition of a " simulation facility" because the plant cannot safely perform the functions that a simulator can.
T c.
Comment 76-16 indicates that the proposed changes do not identify the conditions for, or limitation on, the use of the plant for operating tests and operator training, and requests that such guidelines be provided.
d.
Comment 4-1 indicates a concern with using the plant to initiate transients, but indicates that if the plant was chosen as the simulation facility the application should not need to include much of the details specified in S 55.45(b).
Resolution:
NRC neither encourages nor permits the initiation of transients on the plant as training evolutions.
The designation of the plant as a simulation device was' envisioned as a possible approach that a facility licensee might propose to use in conjunction with another simulation device, or devices, in lieu of a plant-referenced 4
simulator.
This approach might be especially suitable for older plants without plant-referenced simulators where manipulations of the l
plant (to the extent consistent with plant conditions) might be used to demonstrate familiarity with the plant for which the candidate would be licensed.
i e.
Comments 19-7, 32-8, 36-26, 39-7, 47-12, 52-18, and 76-16 note that the definitions of a " simulation facility" in ANS 3.5 and S 55.4 are not consistent in that-ANS 3.5 does not include the plant as a: simulation f
Enclosure B 4
facility.
These comments also indicate that there are several reasons why a plant could not meet the requirements of ANS 3.5.
Resolution:
Disagree.
ANS 3.5 (1985) 'does not define " simulation facility." It does define " reference plant" in a manner similar to the definition in 10 CFR 55.4 of " plant-referenced simulator."
It is agreed that the plant itself cannot meet the requirements of ANS 3.5.
f.
Comment 53-6 indicates that the process was not reasonable because non plant-referenced simulators are disallowed.
g.
Comments 30-18 and 34-3 indicate that S 55.45(b)(2) and (3) erroneously assume that a plant-referenced simulator is the only tool available for testing skills and abilities.
The commenters indicate that other acceptable 4
methods include: (1) non plant-specific simulators and plant walk-throughs, (2) apprentice programs where an operator would be required to be on watch with another licensee for a period of time, or (3) observation of the candidate performing the job by a qualified individual.
h.
Comment 53-7 indicates that similar non plant-referenced simulators should be acceptable for initial qualification examinations.
1 Resolution: The NRC is not stating that non plant-referenced simula-tors are unacceptable for initial qualification examinations.
How-ever, for situations where a simulation device is proposed that is not referenced to the facility's plant and unit, the NRC is requiring the facility licensee to:
(1) document the analysis that was_done to support the determination that the simulator proposed is an appro-priate simulation device for administering an operating test for the facility's reference plant; and (2) submit the application for NRC approval.
i.
Comment 64-3 indicates that a plant-referenced simulator is not required for accurate examinations, but rather that accurate examinations are a function of the examiner.
Resolution:
The NRC has not proposed that plant-referenced simula-tors be required for examinations.
It is NRC's position that the quality of examinations is a function of both the examiner and the simulation facility.
j.
Comments 19-20, 31-16, 39-20, 45-16, 46-16, 52-2, and 62-16 indic' ate l
that the term " referenced plant" should refer only to the specific nuclear power plant from which a simulator's configuration is derived and not to l
the specific unit, because exact replication of a multiunit plant of the same vendor and vintage is unnecessary and because a simulator will never be an exact replica of an individual unit because of the nature of plant modifications.
f Resolution:
Disagree. Although the word " unit" has been deleted from the definition of " reference plant" for purposes of clarification (since the term " nuclear power plant," used in the definition, refers to a plant with a specific docket number), the intent remains the same.
Not every multiunit plant has each unit of the same vendor and/or i
Enclosure B 5
a vintage.
Specific guidance is provided in RG 1.149 for those utilities who want to propose one-simulation facility for use at more than one unit of a plant.
For those situations in which a multiunit plant is composed of units from the same vendor and vintage, it is reasonable
'to assume that only one plant-referenced simulator will be needed.
k.
Comment 42-6 suggests that the definition of a simulation facility be expanded to include:
(1) a plant-referenced simulator operated by the facility licensee, (2) a vendor's simulator, or (3) other faithful simula-tion devices.
Resolution:
Disagree.
The existing definition in 10 CFR 55.4 is already broader than the definition suggested here.
In S 55.4, a
" plant-referenced simulator" need not be " operated by the facility licensee" and "another simulation device" can include both "a ven-dor's simulator" and "other faithful simulation devices" as well as others not encompassed in this proposed definition.
1.
Comment 78-2 requests'that the proposed rule be revised to more clearly state that plant-referenced simulators are not required for train-ing or licensing examinations.
Resolution:
Disagree.
The definition of " simulation facility" in 10 CFR 55.4 clearly states that plant-referenced simulators are not the only devices that meet the definition.
m.
Comment 78-4 indicates that the proposed rule fails to address simu -
lators that may be owned or operated by a non-licensee.
The commenter generic approval for a simu; ion be revised to permit a vendor to obtain recommends that the regulat lator which then could be used for training and
%~
licensing for plants referenced in such generic approval. The commenter notes that this approach is similar to the generic approval currently authorized for quality assurance plans under 10 CFR 50.
Resolution:
Disagree.
Generic approval of simulators is considered inappropriate for the Commission's intent of ensuring that more uniform examinations are conducted at all facilities, n.
Comments 31-13, 31-17, 45-13, 45-17, 46-13, 46-17, 62-13, 62-17, and 69-27 recommend that the definition of a " simulation facility" be modified to indicate that a vendor or utility simulator is an acceptable device for training / examining personnel from other utilities if there is enough similarity to allow the learning objectives of the training program to be accomplished and the NRC examiner to make a fair and informed decision on the candidates' abilities.
4 Resolution:
The definition of " simulation facility" expressly pro-vides for simulators other than plant-referenced devi_ces by use of i
the term "another simulation device." Because of the diversity of design and proposed application of vendor or utility simulators when used for training / examining personnel from other utilities, it is not possible.to address-all cases with a specific definition.
- Thus, the term "another simulation device" has been included to provide.for this possibility.
Enclosure B 6
i o.
Coment 6-2 indicates that the use of plant-referenced simulation facilities-is a great improvement and that generic simulators can serve essentially the same purpose from a major evolution standpoint.
Resolution:
Noted.
p.
Comments 13-21, 27-6, 36-8, 78-16, and 91-15 indicate that the defini-tion of a " simulation facility" was satisfactorily clear, comprehensive, and distinctive.
Resolution:
Noted.
q.
Comment 5-10 recommends that under the definition of a " simulation facility" the term " plant-referenced simulator" be replaced by the term
" full-scope simulator" because the term full-scope simulator uniquely identifies the only type of training device that is subject to the provi-sions of ANS 3.5.
Resolution: The term " plant-referenced simulator" is directly linked to the intent of the proposed regulations and is tied to terminology J
used in ANSI /ANS 3.5 and, therefore, is retained.
I r.
Comment 67-28 states that the requirements in S 55.45 should be satis-fled without providing test data for simulators that are vendor owned and operated.
Resolution:
See paragraph II.A.3.h, above.
s.
Comment 30-6 indicates that the need for a plant-referenced simulator to allow proper examinations of operators is questionable.
The commenter requests that an additional section be added to S 55.45 on non plant-referenced simulators, rather than leaving it up to utilities to justify i
them.
The commenter further indicated that RG 1.149 should be applicable i
only to plant-referenced simulators.
Resolution:
See paragraphs ILA.3.h and n above.
i t.
Comments 31-15, 45-15, 46-15, 52-3, 62-15, 71-3, and 73-3 suggest an alternative definition of a senior operator in S 55.4:
"a senior operator means any individual licensed under this part to manipulate the controls of a facility and to direct the licensed activities of licensed operators."
Resolution:
Agree.
Definition has been changed in final rule.
l u.
Commentt 14-13, 19-19, 32-22, 35-20, 35-21, 39-19, and 69-4 suggest j
that the following terms should be defined in S 55.4:
exemption, waiver, actively and extensively, satisfactory performance, and evidence.
Comments 21-10, 35-7, and 67-27 recommend that the terms " team-dependent" and " time critical" used in S 55.45 be defined in S 55.4.
Enclosure B 7
=
Resolution:
These terms are used in their everyday sense and further definition is not necessary.
Moreover, the revision to S 55.45(a)(13) l deletes these terms from the final rule.
Comment 9-1 questions whether the definition of " manipulate a control" in S 55.4 included radioactive waste operators, auxiliary operators, turbine building operators, plant chemists, and health physics technicians?
Resolution:
No, " manipulate a control" applies to the definition of
" control" in S 55.4, which is not intended to include the above per-sonnel.
4.
Comments 19-19, 39-19, and 74-6 ask for clarification between S 55.11,
" Specific Exemptions," and S 55.47, " Waivers of Examination and Test Requirements," and for amplification of 9 55.71.
Resolution:
S 55.11 is much broader in coverage and allows exemptions at the Commission's initiative.
S 55.47 is limited to examination and test requirements waivers requested on the application.
S 55.71 does not require amplification.
5.
Comments 19-19, 39-19, and 74-6 asked for clarification of S 55.13.
Resolution:
Wording changes made to S 55.13(b) to clarify that exemp-tion for a trainee at a facility is only while participating in an NRC-approved training program.
6.
Comments 30-11 and 36-10 suggest adding these words to the end of S 55.6
..., facility license or license."
Resolution:
Disagree.
Paragraph 55.6 deals with Commission interpretations.
4 B.
Medical Requirements - Subpart C Most comments support the revisions to the medical requirements.
1.
Corw nt 14-2 agrees with the intent of 5 55.23 which is to require medical reports only when there is a medical problem.
For the usual case, a brief certification by the utility in Form NRC-396 will be sufficient.
Resolution:
Comment noted.
2.
Comments 9-3, 9-6, and 105-2 question the relationship of the medical re-quirements to drug and alcohol problems and programs.
Resolution:
Drug use and alcohol dependence are covered by a sepa-rate Policy Statement on Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (51 FR 27921) published August 4, 1986 by the Commission.
3.
Comments 13-4, 19-25, 23-4, 26-7, 28-10, 28-11, 31-19, 39-25, 43-9, 45-19, 46-19, 47-4, 49-6, 52-8, 59-6, 60-6, 62-19, 65-6, 67-4, 67-25, 71-5, 73-5, 76-1, 84-5, 84-6, 85-7, 96-1, and 105-1 suggest that facility licensees.
should not be required to obtain NRC approval before reinstating a.
Enclosure B 8
- =
1 temporarily incapacitated operator, but rather notification of the NRC should be required. This would impose an unnecessary burden on facility licensees by requiring personnel to immediately cease performance of licensed duties for easily correctable physical conditions while the NRC reviews the medical certification.
Resolution:
Agree.
S 55.25 has been revised to not require notifi-cation of the NRC when a temporarily incapacitated operator is rein-stated.
4.
Comment 52-7 recommends that S 55.33(a)(i)(ii) be revised to indicate that "when the certificatica requests a conditional license based on medical evidence, the medical evidence shall be available for review upon request by the Commission."
4 Resolution:
Disagree.
Implementing this recommendation would put the NRC in the position of acting on a facility licensee's request for a conditional license without having the necessary medical infor-mation by which to judge the appropriateness of the request.
5.
Comment 74-7 noted that the " licensed medical practitioners" are generally not knowledgeable of what medical / health conditions are needed to preclude
" operational errors, endanger public health and safety." This judgment is best made by the facility licensee, using the medical examiner's findings as a basis.
Resolution:
Disagree.
ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 requires the facility to 4
provide the physician with a description of the operator's duties.
i N
6.
Comments 28-9, 31-18, 45-18, 46-18, 62-18, 87-3, 87-4, and 91-3 indicate that a large number of licenses are conditioned to require the licensee to wear corrective lenses while performing licensed duties.
The commenter recommends that S 55.23(b) be revised so that detailed medical evidence need not be submitted for this common condition.
Comment 52-5 suggests.that S 55.23 be revised to state that "once Form NRC-396 is completed by a qualified medical examiner, an authorized repre-sentative of the facility licensee will sign the form certifying the fit-ness of the applicant."
Resolution:
Agree.
These revisions have been made to Form NRC 396.
7.
Comment 21-3 suggests that criteria should be stated by which " defective hearing or vision" may be judged.
The commenter further suggests that limits of criteria should be provided with respect to "any other physical or mental condition that might cause impaire: judgment or motor coordination."
Resolution:
ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 is considered to provide adequate cri-teria for implementation.
4 8.
Comments 29-1, 40-1, 40-5, 83-1, 86-1, 88-1, 89-1, and 130-2 urge maintain-ing the status quo for research, test and training reactors.
I Enclosure B 9
,,-r-
--,,---,,-n,
-..--,,,-----,n-ave,w_~-,---,+------m---
,-------,-.--.--.--,-,-nnn,_._n
-w--
- ~ -- -.w,---
Resolution:
Agree.
The intention for research, test and. training reactors was to maintain the status quo.
The rule has been revised to be clearer in this regard.
4
]
9.
Comment 52-6 requests that revised Form NRC-396 be sent out for comment before the rule is issued.
Comment 86-5 requests a list of specific items to be used to report " medical qualification data."
Resolution:
Form NRC-396 was sent for review under Office of Management and Budget regulations and reflects the final rule requirements.
10.
Comments 14-1, 36-11, 48-3, and 85-6 recommend the frequency of medical examinations be tied to license renewal (once every 5 years) rather than the $ 55.21 requirement of once every 2 years.
Resolution:
The frequency of medical examinations and license renewal has been coordinated by requiring license renewal every 6 years and retaining a biennial medical examination requirement.
C.
Applications - Subpart 0 1.
Comments 19-27, 19-30, 39-27, 39-30, and 85-8 suggest that in S 55.31(a) the phrase "and the facility licensee's need for an operator,. senior oper-ator, or a special operator to perform assigned duties" and S 55.33(a)(3) be deleted in total because the facility licensee will not submit an appli-cation unless there is a "need," and further because there is not a defini-
)
tion or standard that defines "need."
Comments 8-3, 14-15, 24-2, 31-38, and 31-39 expressed concern with the continuing "need" provision of 5 55.57(b)(3) for license renewal for similar reasons.
Resolution:
Noted.
The facility licensee's definition /interpre-tation of '"need" will be accepted by the NRC.
The requirement is intended to simply have the facility licensee's management inter-nally review the need for the license before the application is made.
The requirements remain the same.
2.
Comments 19-27, 39-27, and 67-5 suggest that in S 55.31(a) details should not be necessary for submittal because program requirements are alread) defined, particularly for INPO-accredited training programs.
Resolution:
If an applicant has successfully completed an INPO-accredited program, S 55.31(a) information can be replaced with a certification by the facility (on Form NRC-398) that the candidate has successfully completed the INPO-accredited program that uses a simulation facility acceptable to t's Commission.
3.
Comments 19-27 and 39-27 suggest that i 9 55.31(a)(4) the phrase "the startup and shutdown experience receivec" be replaced with "the startup and shutdown experience received on a plant-referenced simulator or on an I
actual reactor." The commenters indicate that a plant referenced simula-l tor is equivalent to or better than an actual reactor because it allows demonstration, practice, and the insertion of malfunctions.
Enclosure B 10
Resolution:
Disagree.
Current requirements will continue.
4.
Comments 21-4 and 21-6 indicate that the phrase " learned to operate" in S 55.31(a)(4) is a poor choice without providing criteria and further sug-gested that the applicant also should sign the statement to share the responsibility for its truth.
Resolution:
This paragraph has been revised to require the facility licensee to certify that the candidate has successfully completed the facility's requirements to be licensed as a RO or SRO.
There-fore, an applicant's signature would not be necessary.
5.
Comment 46-71 suggests that in S 55.31(b) it be made clear that only information related to the medical or general health of the applicant /
licensee may be requested.
Resolution: This paragraph is intended to address any information that may be relevant to granting or denying the application or whether to revoke, modify, or suspend the license and, therefore, will remain as is.
6.
Comment 66-2 indicates that the directions provided on Form NRC-398 are minimal and unclear and that the detailed information on the content of the Form NRC-398 either be retained in S 55.31 or that Form NRC-398 be modified to clarify the directions for completing the form.
Resolution:
Directions for completion of Form NRC-398 have been revised.
7.
Comment 21-5 requests that in S 55.33(a)(1)(i) criteria be provided for what would " constitute sufficient cause for denial."
Resolution:
Disagree.
The criterion is clear in ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983.
Moreover, this paragraph has been deleted.
8.
Comment 9-7 suggests that the following phrase be added to the end of S 55.33(a)(1)(ii) "... while performing assigned operator job duties during emergency situations requiring the use of respirators."
Resolution:
The subject section has been deleted.
D.
Written Examinations and Operating Tests 1.
Comments 2-2, 13-5, 13-6, 14-4, 14-5, 14-6, 22-4, 23-5, 26-1, 26-2, 28-12, 28-14, 30-15, 30-16, 31-3, 31-6, 31-21, 31-22, 31-25, 32-11, 33-3, 35-3, 35-4, 36-15, 36-17, 37-3, 37-6, 37-7, 37-11, 42-1, 42-2, 45-3, 45-6, 45-21, 45-22, 45-25, 46-21,'46-3, 46-6, 46-22, 46-25, 47-5, 49-1, 49-2, 52-11, 52-12, 52-14, 52-16, 59-1, 59-2, 60-1, 60-2, 62-3, 62-6, 62-21, 62-22, 62-25, 65-1, 65-2, 66-1, 66-25, 67-1, 67-8, 71-7, 71-8, 71-10, 71-11, 73-7, 73-8, 73-10, 73-11, 74-9, 74-13, 76-2, 77-2, 80-2, 84-1, 85-9, 87-5, 87-8, 90-4, and 91-1 indicate that the principal means of determining knowledge, skills, and abilities for operator licensing examinations should be the learning objectives derived from a systematic analysis of 1
i Enclosure B 11
l l
the jobs, but that these objectives are " buried" in a long list of infor-mation to be used in the development of an examination.
These commenters recommend that these learning objectives form the basis and scope of examinations and that the other sources of information will only be used until the objectives are available.
2.
Comments 19-31, 19-33, 19-35, 35-1, 35-2, 39-31, 39-33, and 39-35 object to the inclusion in 9 55.41(a) of " operating manuals" and "other materials requested from the facility licensee" because of a concern that irrelevant or trivial questions would thus be included on the examination.
3.
Comments 52-10, 52-13, and 52-15 indicate that in 6 55.41(a), S 55.43(a),
and S 55.45(a), the words " operating manuals" implied technical manuals which generally exceed the knowledge requirements of an operator.
Resolution:
The examination sources listed in the proposed regula-tions for licensing examinations have been reviewed.
Each item was found to be a necessary reference for examiners in developing content-valid examinations for a specific facility.
However, " learning objec-tives" have been moved to indicate their importance as the major source.
In addition, the wording has been changed to clarify what is meant by " operating manual." The new wording is " system descrip-tion manuals and operating procedures."
l 4.
Comments 6-3, 6-4, 7-6, 13-3, 19-2, 39-2, 46-76, 53-2, 64-4, and 74-1 ques-tion the context basis of the examination and operating test and noted that trivial or irrelevant content is tested.
5.
Comment 50-1 indicates that the required knowledge for R0 and SR0 examina-tions should be more specific.
The commenter recommends that the NRC 7
issue a document that specifically. delineates what an R0 or SRO is respon-sible for on NRC examinations and that the document be complete, condensed, accurate, and up-to-date and should be contained in no more than two or three volumes.
Resolution:
The NRC has conducted an extensive review of the content bases for examinations.
For PWRs the results of this review have been published in NUREG-1122.
For BWRs the results have been pub-lished in NUREG-1123.
Based on subject-matter expert input, only important content will be tested.
6.
Comment 16-1 indicates that the Commission is being premature in proposing to promulgate regulations that would draw license examination questions from a systematic analysis that neither the NRC nor the general public has yet seen.
Resolution:
Job-task analysis is an accepted methodology for deriv-ing licensing examination content.
Job-task analyses are part of the performance-based training programs being implemented by facility licensees as part of the INPO-accreditation program.
Promulgating regulations provide assurances to facility licensees that licensing examinations and operator training programs will be on a more con-sistent basis.
Enclosure B 12
c 7.
Comment 2-7 indicates that there were some differences between the list of testable subjects in the present S 55.21 and S 55.22 and the proposed S 55.41 and 5 55.43 and that these differences were not pointed out in the description of the changes in the Federal Register.
The commenter further indicated that, for the most part, the proposed changes clarify the require-4 ments except for the addition of " administrative procedures" which the commenter indicated should not be incorporated in the examination.
Resolution:
Noted.
These changes are as detailed in the following list.
Brackets indicate additions to present categories.
Subpart E - Written Examinations and Operatina Tests S 55.41 Written examination:
Operators.
(a) Content.
The written examination for an operator will contain a representative selection of questions on the knowl-edge, skills, and abilities needed to perform licensed oper-ator job duties.
The knowledge, skills, and abilities will be identified in part from information in the Final Safety f
Analysis Report, [ system description manuals and operating procedures], facility license and license amendments, Licen-see Event Reports, the learning objectives derived from a i
systematic analysis performed by each facility licensee and contained in its training program, and other materials j
requested from the facility licensee by the Commission.
(b) The written examination for an operator for a facility will include a representative sample from among the following 14 items, to the extent applicable to the facility, --
4 g
(1) Fundamentals of reactor theory, including fission pro-cess', neutron multiplication, source effects, control l
rod effects, criticality indications, [ reactivity i
coefficients, and poison effects.]
l l
(2) General design features of the core, including core structure, fuel elercents, control rods, core instru-mentation, and coolant flow.
i (3) Mechanical components and design features of the reactor primary system.
(4) [ Secondary coolant and] auxiliary systems that affect the facility, i
(5) [ Facility] operating characteristics [during steady-state end transient conditions, including coolant chemistry,] causes and effects of temperature, pressure and reactivity changes, effects of load changes, and operating limitations and reasons for these operating i
characteristics.
Enclosure B 13
(6) Design, components, and functions of [ reactivity control mechanisms] and instrumentation.
(7)
[ Design], components, and functions of control and safety systems, including instrumentation, signals, interlocks,
[ failure modes,] and automatic and manual features.
(8) Components, capacity, and functions of emergency systems.
(9) Shielding, isolation, and containment design features, including access limitations.
(10)
[ Administrative, normal, abnormal] and emergency operating procedures for the facility.
(11) Purpose and operation of radiation monitoring systems, including alarms and survey equipment.
(12) Radiological safety principles and procedures.
[(13) Procedures and equipment available for handling and disposal of radioactive materials and effluents.]
[(14) Principles of heat transfer thermodynamics and fluid mechanics.]
$ 55.43 Written examination:
Senior operators.
(a) Content. The written examination for a senior operator will contain a representative selection of questions on the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform licensed senior operator job duties.
The knowledge, skills, and abili-ties will be identified in part from information in the Final Safety Analysis Report, [ system description manuals and operat-ing procedures], facility license and license amendments, Licensee Event Reports, the learning objectives derived from a systematic analysis performed by each facility licensee and contained in its training program, and other meterials re-quested from the facility licensee by the Commission.
(b) The written examination for a senior operator for a faci-lity will include a representative sample from among the following 7 items and on the 14 items specified in 9 55.41, to i
the extent applicable to the facility, --
(1) Conditions and limitations in the facility license.
j (2) [ Facility] operating limitations in the technical spe-cifications [and their bases].
i (3) Facility licensee procedures required to obtain authority j
for design and operating. changes in the facility.
I l
l Enclosure B 14 l
(4) Radiation hazards that may arise during [ normal and abnormal s,ituations] including maintenance activities and various contamination conditions.
[(5) Assessment of facility conditions and selection of ap-propriate procedures during normal, abnormal and emer-gency situations.]
(6) Procedures and limitations involved in initial core loading, alterations in core configuration, control rod programming, and determination of various internal and external effects on core reactivity.
(7) Fuel handling facilities and procedures.
S 55.45 Operating tests.
(a) Content.
The operating tests administered to applicants for operator and senior operator licenses in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section are generally similar in scope.
The content will be identified, in part, from infor-mation in the Final Safety Analysis Report, [ system descrip-tion manuals and operating procedures,] facility license and license amendments, Licensee Event Reports, learning objec-tives derived from a systematic analysis performed by each facility licensee and contained in its training program, and other materials requested from the facility licensee by the Commission.
The operating test, to the~ extent applicable, requires the applicant to demonstrate an understanding of and the ability to perform the actions necessary to accom-q plish a representative sample from among the following 13 items:
(1) Perform pre-start-up procedures for the facility, including [ operation of those controls] associated' with plant equipment that could affect reactivity.
(2) Manipulate the console controls as required to operate the facility [between] shutdown and desig-nsted power levels.
(3)
Identify annunciators and condition-indicating signals and perform appropriate remedial action where appropriate.
(4)
Identify the instrumentation systems and the signi-ficance of [ facility] instrument readings.
(5) [0bserve and safely control] the operating. behavior characteristics of the facility.
(6) Perform control manipulations required to obtain desired operating results during normal, abnormal, and emergency situations.
Enclosure B 15
e (7) Safely operate the facility's heat removal systems, including primary coolant, emergency coolant, and decay. heat removal systems,.and identify the rela-tion of the proper operation of these systems to the operation of the facility.
(8) Safely operate the facility's auxiliary [and emer-gency] systems, [ including operation of those con-trols associated with plant equipment] that could affect reactivity [or the release of radioactive materials to the environment].
(9) Demonstrate or describe the use and function of the facility's radiation monitoring systems, including fixed radiation monitors and alarms, portable survey instruments, and personnel monitoring equipment.
(10) Demonstrate knowledge of significant radiation hazards including permissible levels in excess of those authorized and ability to perform or apply as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) or other procedures to reduce excessive levels of radiation ll and to guard against personnel exposure.
i (11) Demonstrate knowledge of the emergency plan for j
the facility, including [as appropriate] the opera-tor's or senior operator's responsibility to decide whether the plan should be executed and the duties under the plan assigned.
7 (12) [ Demonstrate the knowledge and ability to assume the responsibilities, as appropriate, of the assigned position, associated with the safe operation of the
]
facility.]
(13) [ Demonstrate the applicant's ability to function l
within the control room team, as appropriate to the assigned position, in such a way that the facility licensee's procedures are adhered to and that the limitations in its license and amendments are not 4
violated.]
8.
Comment 30-14 suggests removing the words " skills and abilities" from the written examination content requirements of 5 55.41 (a) as written examina-tions are best adaptable to testing knowledge, not skills and abilities, while comments 42-3 and 47-5 recommenc' that the phrase " knowledge, skills and abilities" be included in 5 55.45 because operating tests as well as written examinations measure knowledge, skills and abilities.
Resolution:
Noted.
Some skills and abilities are appropriate for testing through written examination.
Therefore, the sections will remain as is.
1 I
Enclosure B 16 i
(
1 a
4 9.
Many comments suggest changes to S 55.41, S 55.43, and S 55.45 regarding the content of written examinations and operating tests.
Specifically, the following comments were reviewed:
9-9, 9-10, 9-11, 9-12, 9-14, 14-9, 14-10, 14-11, 19-36, 19-37, 19-38, 19-39, 23-6, 32-4, 32-12, 32-13, 32-14, 32-15, 35-5, 39-36,~ 39-37, 39-38, 39-39, 46-73, 46-74, 46-75, 46-77, 46-78, 47-6, 47-7, 47-8, 47-9, 48-5, 48-6, 69-6, 69-7, 69-8, 69-9, 71-12, i -
71-13, 71-14, 73-12, 73-13, 73-14, 74-10, 74-11, 74-12, 82-1, 82-3, 85-11, 85-12, 85-13, 85-14, 87-6, and 92-2.
Resolution:
These comments were reviewed by subject-matter experts and changes were made to the regulation to clarify or improve the content categories.
The modifications are reflected in S 55.41, i
5 55.43, and S 55.45(a).
10.
Many comments were received about categories S 55.45(a)(12) and 5 55.45(a)(13),
a.
Comments 13-7, 19-41, 23-8, 28-16, 30-17, 31-26, 32-17, 39-41, 43-6, l-45-26, 46-26, 46-80, 47-10, 52-17, 62-26, 69-10, 71-15, 73-15 74-14, 76-3, 81-1, 85-15, and 87-9 indicate that S 55.45(a)(12) is too subjective and should be deleted or combined with (13) as follows:
" Demonstrate the knowledge and ability to function as a member of the control room team by i-assuming the responsibilities of the assigned position for the safe oper-i ation of the facility and performing operating evolutions in a manner j
consistent with station procedures and requirements."
I b.
Comments 19-41, 30-17, 39-41, 47-11, 69-11, 71-16, 73-16, 74-15, 77-3, 84-2, and 85-16 indicate that the requirements of f 55.45(a)(13) to " Demon-strate team dependent and time-critical behaviors associated with safe l---
operations of the facility" are not objectively measurable.
The commenters recommend deleting the requirement or changing the sentence to read "Indi-viduals function within the team so that procedural and license limitations j-are maintained."
c.
Comments 14-8, 42-4, 42-5, and 48-8 question whether " team-dependent I
and time-critical behaviors" can be reliably measured through individual examinations.
The commenters suggest that team performance might be j
better measured through requalificatlon examinations.
d.
Comments 14-7, 19-1, 19-40, 28-15, 32-16, 33-4, 35-6, 36-1, 36-18, l
36-19, 37-12, 39-1, 39-40, 47-10, 48-7, and 91-2 question whether in l
$ 55.45(a)(12) " willingness and ability to assume responsibility" can be measured.
Commenters indicate that, unless objective and measurable i
standards were provided, this was best determined by the facility l
licensee through selection and training programs.
Resolution:
Agree that the wording changes are necessary to clarify the intent of these categories.
However, as reworded these content l
areas can be measured.
Tiine-critical includes timely adherence to technical specifications and limiting conditions for operation.
Team-l dependent includes communications and other interactive behaviors.
The rule has been reworded as follows:
1 I.
Enclosure B 17
(12) Demonstrate the knowledge and ability to assume the respon-sibilities, as appropriate to the assigned position, asso-ciated with the safe operation of the facility.
(13) Demonstrate the applicant's ability to function within the control room team, as. appropriate to the assigned position, so that procedural and license limitations are maintained.
11.
Comments 23-6, 32-12, 46-74, and 46-77 suggest'that the phrase "to the extent applicable to the facility" in 5 55.41(b) and 5 55.43(b) be changed to "to the extent applicable to the operator's job at the facility."
Resolution:
Noted.
The word " facility" will remain because the operator's job is related to the facility " hardware" and license.
12.
Comments 30-5, 43-5, 54-1, and 92-2 suggest that with the increased emphasis on the operating test that is provided through the availability i
of plant-referenced simulators this is an ideal time to modify the written examination process.
Commenters suggest that the learning objectives be l
evaluated by review to determine whether they are best evaluated through the operating test or written examination.
Their expectation is that this 4
would result in less reliance on the written test, which would do away i
with the situation where one set of skills is required to safely operate a nuclear power plant and a very different (and inappropriate) set of skills to obtain a license.
Comment 48-4 suggests that more emphasis should be 4
i placed or operating tests.
i Resolution:
Noted.
This issue is being addressed through an i
ongoing examination development project, which will be implemented L
through appropriate revisions to Examiner Standards.
13.
Comments 19-32, 31-23, 36-16, 39-32, 45-23, 46-23, 62-23, 71-9, 73-9, and f
85-10 take exception to the words " design" and " design features" in l
5 55.41(b) and suggested that the words " operational limitations" would be more appropriate because they are within the operator's ability to con-trol and deal with and design features are not.
l 14.
Comments 21-8 and 21-9 indicate that 9 55.45(a)(9) requires an operator to " demonstrate or describe the use of portable survey equipment" and
(
8 55.45(a)(10) requires similar ability with respect to ALARA procedures, f
yet these are not tasks that an operator must perform.
Therefore, the commenter recommends that the items be deleted.
Comment 49-1 indicates that radiological safety should not be part of the operators' examination.
i l
Resolution:
NRC sets minimum requirements for licensed R0s and SR0s.
These requirements are reflected in 5 55.41, 5 55.43, and S 55.45.
R0s and SR0s are held responsible for the performance of these tasks i
even if they are delegated to others.
Similarly, while the design i
features are outside the direct control of an RO, it is essential l
that the RO has an appreciable understanding of design features so that (s)he knows how and what is affected by what (s)he can control, t
t l
15.
Several comments address issues about the examination or operating test j
that are more appropriately addressed in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing l
Enclosure B 18 i
~
o i
Examiner Standards." These included comments 23-7, 32-18, and 43-5, which suggest that sections be added to S 55.41 and S 55.43 to provide for 1
i utility review of licensing examinations.
Comment 67-15 also is concerned,with utility review of examinations.
a.
Comment 40-3 and 85-11 recommend that S 55.41(b) contain a list i
worded similar to lines of the written examination categories with additional details on the content as is deemed appropriate for each category.
i b.
Comment 11-2 requests more multiple-choice questions.
Comment 14-10 recommends that S 55.41(b)(10) be more specific.
Comments 21-11 and 26-3 express concern with the conduct of operating tests.
l Resolution:
These issues are administrative and covered in MRG'TMT.
I 16.
Several comments suggest waiver to examinations.
l l
a.
Comment 67-14 recommends consideration of the check operator concept i
discussed in NUREG/CR-1750 as a basis for waivers and to relieve the exami-nation burden on the NRC.
b.
Comments 71-17 and 73-17 recommend changes in 5 55.47 to specifically.
describe criteria and procedures for waivers of examinations based on oper-ating experience at a comparable facility.
Comment 74-16 recommends that operating experience be defined as 5 years actual operating experience, c.
Comments 28-18, 47-15, 67-14, 71-17, and 73-17 recommend that the Commission adopt in $ 55.47 the latitude for waiver of written and/or oper-7 ating tests for operator candidates who have completed an INPO-accredited training program and/or requalification programs.
d.
Comment 52-25 recommends that 5 55.47(1) be revised to incorporate "an extensive amount of instruction regarding operating at a comparable facil-t ity" as a criterion for waivers.
i i
j Resolution:
As the agency responsible for public health and safety, l
the NRC cannot, as a practice, waive independent assessment of l
operators and senior operators. Waivers are based on previously pas-sing all or part of a licensing examination.
Details regarding waivers are addressed in NUREG-1021.
17.
Many comments support the addition of 5 55.49, " Integrity of Examinations i
and Tests." Comments 13-9, 19-45, 23-12, 27-7, 31-33, 39-45, 43-8, 45-33, i
l 46-33, 47-16, 62-33, 77-6, 80-4, and 81-4 felt that the penalties in 8 55.71(a) were excessive.
Commenters indicate that, as stated, uninten-l tionally contributing to the compromise of an examination is a crime.
(
Comment 35-11 questions whether S 55.49 would be interpreted to mean that discussing the examination after it was administered would be considered a crime.
This comment and comments 66-4, 74-17, 76-8, and 85-29 also re-quest that the limits of examination integrity and activities prohibited be more accurately defined in 5 55.49, because activities such as practice examinations might be interpreted as cheating.
Also, the role of facility 3
i Enclosure B 19
)
- _. _, _.._ _.---- _ -- _ - -.-..-._- _, _ -_. -. _ ~ _ _ _ ~ - - - _
licensees'in enforcement should be identified.
Comment 28-19 indicates that 5 55.49 is unnecessary.
Resolution:
In regard to 5 55.71, the specific language.used is "will-fully violates."
In regard to examination review, the statement of considerations of the final rule makes clear that an examination could be discussed after it was administered and that practice examinations will be allowed.
More specificity about prohibited activities is un-necessary.
NRC always has prosecutorial discretion not to take en-forcement actions in unclear cases or to take enforcement action against both facility licensees and operator licensees where both violated the regulations.
i
{
E.
Simulation Facilities 1.
Many comments express concerr with the burdensome administrative procedure required for facility licensee initial and subsequent applicetion for approval of simulation facilities.
a.
Comments 19-44, 31-4, 31-9, 39-44, 45-4, 45-9, 46-4, 46-9, 62-4, and 62-9 suggest that the NRC should minimize the administrative burden on utilities to justify their use of simulation facilities.
Specifically, i
l~
(1) for utilities with plant-referenced simulators a commitment to industry l
standards is recommended, (2) utilities that use simulators referenced to j
plants other than their own should simply be required to justify how the learning objectives can be achieved with the simulator, and (3) older plants seeking to use some other simulation device for the operating test should justify how learning objectives will be achieved.
One commenter j
suggests that specific mention of the possibility of exceptions for older p
plants should be stated in the rule.
b.
Comments 5-1, 5-11, 13-8, 23-11, 26-4, 27-1, 27-2, 28-1, 28-2, 28-17, 31-7, 31-8, 31-28, 32-2, 32-19, 33-5, 37-1, 37-4, 41-4, 45-7, 45-8, 45-28,
~
j 46-7, 46-8, 46-28, 47-14, 49-3, 49-4, 51-4, 52-21, 56-2, 59-3, 59-4, 60-3, l
60-4, 61-1, 62-7, 62-8, 62-28, 65-3, 65-4, 69-2, 69-22, 69-23, 77-1, 77-4, 78-12, 78-3, 78-11, 82-5, 84-3, 84-4, 85-17, 85-21, 85-25, 90-1, 91-10, and 99-11 indicate that the requirements for testing, documentation, and certi-l fication of simulators in the proposed changes to 5 55.45 are unnecessarily restrictive and burdensome and are more extensive than what is required for the plants themselves.
The commenters recommend instead that the regu-lations and regulatory guides should require: (1) a utility's certification that its simulator meets the industry standard (ANSI /ANS 3.5), (2) the i
development of a procedure for keeping the simulator up to date with the plant, and (3) the availability of= test results at the utility, or (4) some i
other efficient process.
c.
Comments 37-14, 43-7, 81-3, and 85-22 indicate that the information, to be submitted to the NRC regarding simulation facilities, consists of f
extensive computer printouts and supplementary informatiori.
- Further, i
l collection and transmittal of the information is expected to be very costly, and the information is available for review by the NRC at any 4
time, on-site.
The commenters expect that analysis of the:information will require special expertise and extensive manpower by the NRC.
For l
these reasons, the commenters recommend that submittal of the data to the Enclosure B 20 u
NRC should not be a requirement, but rather the information should be available for on-site inspection.
d.
Coment 5-4 provides a markup of S 55.45, which relies on licensee certification of the simulation facility, subject to NRC review / approval of the certification. This commenter and comment 37-15 suggest that the following are the advantages of this approach:
1.
Liability and responsibility remain with the facility licensee as the certifier subject to ultimate approval of the NRC.
2.
All information will be available for NRC audit.
3.
Data transmittal to the NRC, and NRC staff review time will be reduced.
4.
More reliable, realistic and effective operability testing.
5.
More time available for training.
e.
Comment 7-2 recommends certification by the facility licensee as is allowed in S 55.47(b) for candidates for licensing examinations.
f.
Comments 5-6, 13-17, 35-9, and 87-13 recommend that certification and application should consist of:
1.
Description of the simulation facility.
2.
Description of annual performance test (coment 5-6 provides a recommended test).
3.
Statement that performance testing was conducted with a summary of the results of the testing and/or corrective 3
action plans.
4.
Schedule for the next performance test.
5.
Schedule for the next annual submittal of certification by licensee.
6.
Statement that detailed documentation is available for audit.
g.
Comments 5-3, 67-10, 76-6, 87-3, and 87-12 indicate that certifica-tion of the simulation facility by the licensee provides the same credi-i bility as the method in the proposed S 55.45 with much less administrative burden on the licensee and the NRC staff.
The commenters also indicate that licensee certification is consistent with the methods used by the NRC for medical examination records and operator license applications ($ 55.23 and S 55.31).
Resolution:
The major substance of these comments has been incorpo-rated into the final rule.
For facility licensees which use a simu-i lation facility that is a plant-referenced simulator in accordance with the definition in 10 CFR 55.4 and meets the requirements of ANS 3.5-1985, as modified by RG 1.149, certification to the NRC by the facility licensee will be permissible.
For other simulation facilities, NRC approval of the simulation facility based on the facility licensee's
(
application will be required.
For all simulation facilities, detailed documentation of performance testing may be maintained by the facility l
licensee for NRC review, and need not be transmitted to NRC.
l l
Enclosure B 21 i
2.
Comments 5-11 and 87-11 recommend that the title of S 55.45(b)(3) be changed to " Initial Licensee Certification of Simulation Facilities" because their opinion is that simulation facility certification responsi-bility should be with the facility licensee not the NRC.
Comment 5-11 provides proposed change pages to S 55.45(b) to reflect this certification approach.
Resolution:
SS55.45(b) has been rewritten, and the titles of the paragraphs have been modified.
3.
Comment 56-7 indicates that S 55.45 is overly complex in its structure and recommends dividing it into two sections:
S 55.45, " Operating Tests-Content," and S 55.46, " Operating Tests-Implementation."
Resolution:
Noted.
10 CFR 55.45 has been simplified as discussed in paragraph E.1.g above.
The structure of 9 55.45 has been somewhat modified.
4.
Comment 13-18 indicates that an annual report that documents changes to the simulation facility, changes to the reference plant that would affect the simulation facility, and the results of tests conducted to ensure the performance capability of the simulator with respect to these changes should be sufficient to maintain an approved simulation facility.
Resolution:
Noted.
The requirement for an annual report has been eliminated.
5.
Comment 30-7 indicates that the application should only state that the simulation facility is sufficient to meet the utility's training and testing needs.
Resolution:
Noted.
This level of detail would not permit the Com-mission to have assurance that the simulation facility is appropriate for the partial conduct of operating tests.
6.
Several comments indicate reapproval of a simulator facility is not
^
necessary.
a.
Comment 32-4 indicates a perception that S 55.45(b)(3)(v)(c)(i) and (c)(2) taken together with 6 55.45(b)(3)(vii)(c) would require repetitive submittals of the same test results, b.
Comments 26-6, 31-30, 45-30, 46-30, 49-5, 59-5, 60-5, 62-30, 65-5, and 84-4 suggest that the portion of 5 55.45(b)(3) on application renewals be changed to read "... documentation of all performance tests conducted since the last annual report."
c.
Comment 76-7 recommends that the S 55.45(b)(vii) requirement for re-application for simulator approval should be abandcned because it provides no additional safeguards and is an administrative burden.
The commenter indicates that this position is supported in NUREG-0885 (issue 3).
d; Comments 37-16, 52-23, 52-24, and 85-27 indicate that approval of a-simulation facility on a 4 year basis is an unnecessary administrative Enclosure B 22
requirement.. The commenters recommend that the continued adequacy of simu-lators should be based on their use in training and operator examinations and through a review of the configuration. management system; further ap-plications should be required only if a facility licensee changes simula-tion facilities.
Resolution:
Substantially agree.
The regulation has been changed to delete the requirement for facility licensees to reapply for approval of a simulation facility every 4 years.
7.
Comments 56-1 and 85-26 note the following concerns with the process:
a.
The submittal of a plan in S 55.45(b)(2) is redundant with the application for approval. Also, future facility licensees would apparently not be required to submit this plan.
b.
The annual report essentially is a renewal application and should be eliminated or replaced with a requirement to submit information on significant changes as they occur.
c.
The standard to be used by the NRC in approving simulation facili-ties is too vague.
Resolution:
(a) Disagree.
The plan in S 55.45(b)(2) (now S 55.45(b)(2)(1) and (b)(3)(1) for facility applicants) requires the utility to submit a plan, in accordance with which it will develop a simulation facility and apply for approval of that simulation facility.
The actual application for simulation facility approval, in S 55.45(b)(4)(i) is T
not part of the plan.
Future facility licensees have been addressed in the final rule.
~
(b) See resolution at paragraph E.6 above.
(c) See Enclosure C, resolution at paragraph III.B.4.c.
l 8.
Many comments address the burden of undertaking periodic performance tests, and several divergent recommendations were made about the performance test cycle, a.
Comment 30-6 indicates that the requirements of 9 55.45(b) would necessitate the creation of an entire department to test the simulation facility and that very little time would remain for actually using the simulator.
b.
Cor ients 32-4, 41-5, 51-5, and 82-4 recommend that 8 55.45(b)(3)(1)(c) not req. Ire a detailed schedule for performance tests each year, but rather a list with a commitment to conduct 25% 1 5% of the tests each year with 100% in 4 years, or some other less prescriptive approach.
c.
Comments 18a-1, 31-29, 45-29, 46-29, and 62-29 indicate that a re-quirement for 25% of all performance tests to be performed each year is excessive.
One commenter indicates that it makes little sense to perform more tests on the simulator than on the plant itself.
Enclosure B 23
/
Comment 3-1 recomends that performance tests for simulators be con-d.
ducted each year to demonstrate the acceptability of the simulator perfor-The commenter estimates that such a test could be completed in 1 s
mance.
to 2 days.
e.
Coments 36-21, 72-2, and 72-9 recomend deleting 9 55.45(b)(3) in its entirety because these issues are unfit for the rigor of regulation.
The commenter further indicates that the proposed rules are unrealistic j
and very costly in simulator time required to accomplish such requirements 7
and unnecessary.
f.
Coments 82-2 and 85-23 indicate that a complete simulator perform-ance test package requires about 40 shift weeks to complete and feel that The a requirement to perform 25% of these each year is excessive.
commenters recommend instead that the portions of the simulator affected i
by modification be tested, as required. The commenters point out that software needs to be raverified only when it is altered.
Coments 28-3 and 56-3 recomend that all of 9 55.45(b) except (b)(1) l
~
g.and (b)(3)(c)(iii) be deleted and that RG 1.149 endorse performance testing and documentation guidelines found in Section 5.4 and Appendices of ANS 3.5.
Comments 28-4 and 56-4 indicate that endorsing Section 5.4 of ANS 3.5 h.is sufficient and that requiring annual testing is an unnecessary admin-istrative requirement.
i.
Comments 30-8 and 91-13 indicate that performance testing should only be required when changes are made to the simulation software; then only to the extent necessary to ensure that the changes have been properly iK
- made, j.
Comments 41-5 and 51-5 recommend that complete performance testing i~
be required once every 4 years, rather than 25% per year, to provide l
flexibility in scheduling.
i The Commission believes that certain performance tests Resolution:
relating to abnormal and emergency events should be performed on a I
i l
regular basis.
The Commission has endorsed in RG 1.149, the appli-cable paragraphs and Appendices in ANSI /ANS-3.5, 1985. The Commission l
l has specified that these performance tests be performed over a 4 year l
cycle, approximately 25% per year, to achieve a balance between the l
workload of NRC's simulator reviewers, the burden of undertaking such testing by the facility licensee, and providing assurance that a simu-lation facility remains acceptable over time.
i Come.nt 87-12 recommends changes to S 55.45 to emphasize that the perfor-I 9.
l man a test is a one-time event.
Resolution:
The commenter misinterpreted S 55.45.
The performance i
l test is not a one-time event.
I i
\\
The Commission had requested specific public comment on the nature of per-l 10.
formance tests needed to adequately assess simulation facility adequacy l
l 1
l i
i Enclosure B 24
~
and on the method by which such performance tests should be selected and scheduled.
Several comments address these issues.
a.
Comment 91-12 recommends that license examiners verify simulator performance as part of operator examinations rather than require perform-ance testing, b.
Comment 78-13 suggests that assurance of adequate simulator perform-ance is best provided by observation during annual training and by compari-son of simulator performance to actual plant performance.
Resolution:
Agree in part.
Although observation by experienced per-sonnel is a valuable part of simulator performance assurance, it cannot substitute for an objective, quantifiable performance test.
The level of fidelity and time scale for performance measurement specified in ANS 3.5 is not amenable to human observation.
It is agreed that comparison of simulator performance to actual plant performance is an excellent way to assure simulator adequacy.
c.
Comment 35-10 provides a suggested performance testing program for a simulation facility.
Resolution:
- Noted, d.
Comment 53-8 recommends no performance testing because " testing is not an acceptable measure of performance assurance."
Resolution:
Noted.
e.
Comments 27-4, 31-11, 36-6, 45-11, 46-11, 53-9, 62-11, and 69-25 in-7 dicate that no performance testing should be required.
Resolution:
Noted.
See paragraph II.E.8 above.
f.
Comment 13-19 indicates that the selection be left to the facility licensee to indicate in the initial application.
l Resolution:
Agree.
That is the intent of the regulation.
g.
Comment 32-5 indicates that the RG 1.149 statement, "every malfunc-tion condition that can be introduced into the simulator by the simulator operator should be tested if such malfunctions may be used in the conduct of operating tests," unfairly penalizes utilities that procure and main-tain state-of-the-art simulators that have the capability to simulate more malfunctions.
l Resolution:
Noted.
The Commission recognizes that a requirement to 4
perform additional, performance tests imposes an additional burden.
The capability of a simulator to perform additional malfunctions is of l
little value, however, unless it can be demonstrated that those mal-I functions are faithfully simulated. Worse, the simulator exercise of a low fidelity malfunction may have adverse effects on operator per-formance in the plant.
The Regulatory Guide has been changed to endorse the list of malfunctions specified in ANS 3.5.
Enclosure B 25 I
~
h.
Comment 78-14 recommends that the selection, scheduling, and perfor-mance of simulator performance tests be at the discretion of the facility licensee and that NRC should limit its participation to auditing facility l'
- records, i.
Comment 32-6 recommends that performance testing be tied to the ranipulations specified in S 55.59(c) and suggests specifics with respect to the frequency of testing for each manipulation.
4 Resolution:
Noted.
The Regulatory Guide has been changed to endorse the list of malfunctions specified in ANS 3.5.
11.
Several comments suggest adoption of a configuration management system in lieu of performance testing.
a.
Comments 27-3, 31-10, 37-15, 45-10, 46-10, 62-10, 69-24, and 76-5 recommend that rather than performance testing, a configuration management system be required.
Comment 36-5 provides the same recommendation supple-mented with periodic audits by the NRC.
b.
Comments 5-2, 5-7, and 87-7 indicate that simulator fidelity can be more effectively achieved by a combination of simulator configuration con-trol and periodic performance testing (Appendix B of proposed revision to ANS 3.5).
One commenter provides a proposed simulator configuration con-trol program and a periodic performance testing program as enclosures to the comments.
The commenter indicates that these two programs would pro-e vide a reduced burden on the facility licensee and an increased assurance j
of performance capability compared to proposed NRC requirements.
c.
Comment 52-22 recommends that an in-depth study be undertaken of the essential components of an effective configuration management system j
before establishing such a requirement.
l Resolution:
Noted.
While the Commission recognizes the benefits of an effective configuration management system, its responsibility is i
to ensure that simulation facilities are appropriate for the partial 1
conduct of operating tests, and not to dictate the manner in_which a j
utility develops the capability to provide that assurance.
l 12.
Several comments address the NRC approach to review and approval of simulation facilities.
a.
Comment' 77-5 suggests that the majority of changes to the simulator I
will follow Commission-approved plant changes and that it is redundant to j
require approval of these same changes for the simulator.
Resolution:
Disagree.
Without requiring that changes be made to a i
simulation facility, there is no assurance that any plant changes will be incorporated into that simulation facility. '
b.
Comments 19-5, 19-6, 39-5, 39-6, and 80-3 indicate a need to develop 1
I safety-related criteria for each type.of simulation facility, particularly non plant-referenced simulators, i
=
Enclosure B-26 7
- ~ -
c.
Comment 85-24 indicates that S 55.45(b)(3)(iii) provides no guidance as to " appropriate use," so that there is no assurance of approval.
d.
Comment 67-13 questions if a plant-referenced simulator is not used, what data should be submitted in response to S 55.45 (b)(3)(vii) since ANS 3.5 performance data is based on a plant-referenced simulator.
The commenter further indicates that that level of data is not necessary for a non plant referenced simulator, e.
Comment 85-18 indicates that S 55.45(b)(2) is unrealistic in that it permits only full compliance or some unspecified " acceptable alternative method for complying" without providing any guidance or objectives upon which to measure acceptability.
The commenter further indicates that blind reference to ANS 3.5 is inappropriate because many portions of that standard are not required to permit a simulator to be effectively used as a training and examination tool.
Resolution:
It is the Commission's intent that a plant-referenced simulator that meets the requirements of ANS 3.5 as modified by Regu-latory Guide 1.149 may be used in the conduct of operating tests based on a certification submitted by the facility licensee.
Detailed guid-ance, including approval criteria, will be developed by the Commission and made available to all facility licensees before the time when simulation facility audits will be conducted.
Such guidance will not impose any new requirements.
Equivalent guidance will be developed for simulation facilities other than plant-referenced simulators.
It should be noted that ANS 3.5 is an industry consensus standard endorsed by NRC with certain exceptions.
Endorsement of this standard is more efficient and less burdensome than NRC development of its own independ-ent guidance.
13.
A number of comments criticize the time schedules established in S 55.45 as being unreasonably short.
a.
Comments 5-5, 13-16, 19-4, 19-43, 23-9, 31-27, 35-8, 36-3, 36-20, 39-4, 39-43, 41-3, 43-7, 45-27, 46-27, 47-13, 51-3, 52-19, 52-20, 62-27, 67-9, 67-11, 78-11, 81-2, 85-19, 85-20, and 87-10 indicate that the time require-ments in S 55.45(b) were unrealistically short.
The 120-day requirement for plan submittal was not felt to provide sufficient time for investigating options, estimating costs, and validating the ability to meet the plan.
A period of 1 year is recommended.
The 3 year date for having an approved simulation facility operational also was judged to be an unreasonable time in which to prepare a specification, procure and fabricate a simulator, and conduct acceptance testing; recommendations for a reasonable time ranged from 4 to 6 years.
Resolution:
Agree.
The 120-day requirement for plan submittal has been changed to 1 year and the 3 year date for an acceptable simula-tion facility has been changed to 4 years.
14.
Several comments express concern with the harshness of the penalty to be invoked in the event of the unavailability of a simulation facility for the conduct of examinations.
/
Enclosure B 27
7 _
y.,
.\\
)
3 f
l 1
a.
Comment 67-12 indicates that the regulations should provide for.'an
'ynf appeal process-for simulation facilities that are not acceptable to the 4 %
v NRC.Y 3
4 Resolution:
It is the Commission's intent that approval of simula-y tion facilities will be addressed, if needed, on a case-by-case' i
f basis.
The preamble to the final rule will address this issue.
b.
Comments 23-10, 31-31, 31-44, 32-20, 45-31, 45-44, 46-31, 46-44, 46-81, Y.
62-31, 62-44, and 85-20 take h ception to a portion of 9 55.45(b)(3)(x),
i I
which states: t"If the facility licensee subsequently fails to obtain approval for itr, simulation facility, or if the Commission withdraws its
,t, approval in accordance with [1] (b)(3)(xii) of this section, the Commission g
will cease to conduct operating tests for that facility licensee's reference plant." The ccamentors indicate that this would result in the facility
's ceasing operations btcause.of technical specifications and felt:that this 1
1 accorded this provision an importance that has'not been justified. ' Several of the commenters outlined proposed provisions for allowing a licensee to use another simulation facility and further recommended that the regulations s provide for alternatives for the operating test inLthe event of loss of the simulator (e.g., fire, flood, etc.).
Resolution:
It is the Commission's intent that every facility licensee have available a simulation facility that meets the Commission's regu-
, (lations, and that, once available, the simulation facility be m!Lin-tained and upgraded as needed to maintain its acceptability.
The Commission recognizes that unique circumstances may occur from time-j s
to-time on'a plant-specific basis that may result ir, a simulation facility becoming temporarily unacceptable for the conduct of operat-H ing tests. 'It is the Commission's intent to address such situations E
on a case-by-case., basis.
s
)
\\
15.
A number of cosments suggest that'nimulation facility reviews be per-3
[
formed by lic,1ensing examiners.
1 t
s a.
Comments 26-5,,31-4, 45-4, 46-4, 49-3, 59-3, 60-3, 62-4, 65-3, 84-3, 95-4, 98-4,111-4,112-4,118-4, and 128-4 indicate that any simulator audits or reviews performed by the NRC should be. conducted by NRC licensing s
l examiners because they are the individuals who will conduct operating tests using these simulators.
Resolution:
lioted.
The review or audit of a sophisticated sinulator
[.
requires expertise in several disciplines.
'A. study is presently being conducted for the NRC, one purpose of which is to define the-expertise needed by members of a simulation facility evaluation team.
It is likely that the disc;ipline of licensing examiner will be rec-l L
ommended for isclusion in such a team.
r 16.
Sevsral miscellaneous comments to S 55.45 were submitted.
s i
3 a.
Comment'5-6 indicates that footnotes in S 55.45(b)(3)(1)(B),
S 55.45(b)(3)(iii), and S 55.45(b)(3)(ix) referring to RG.1.149 violate the traditional hierarchy of regulatory documents.
l I
Enclosure B 28 ss
\\
.... -. ~.
Resolution:
These footnotes were included in the Federal Register notice for the information of the reviewers.
They will not be included in the. final rulemaking/ regulations.
b.
Comment 9-13 indicates a typographical error in S 55.45(a) in that "and understanding" should read "an understanding."
Resolution:
Corrected.
c.
Comment 2-8 recommends that S 55.45(b) be included in a new part of 10 CFR (not in Part 55) because Part 55 is entitled " Operator Licenses" i
and S 55.45(b) is simulator information/ requirements.
I Resolution:
9 55.45(b) deals with characteristics of a simulation facility that will be required for administering the operating test portion of R0 and SRO licensing examinations.
For that reason it will remain in Part 55 of 10 CFR.
i d.
Comments 21-12 and 21-16 recommend that the NRC issue a policy state-ment requiring operating test. to be administered on a " simulation facil-ity" rather than implementing regulations.
The comenter indicates that this approach would mean there would be no requirements for reports, thus minimizing paperwork.
Resolution:
Disagree.
A policy statement cannot include requirements.
The rule has been rewritten to minimize the reporting requirements.
e.
Comments 19-9 and 39-9 indicate an opinion that, with respect to simulators, S 55.45 and RG 1.149 are attempting to regulate well beyond i
p the criteria necessary to ensure safe operations or evaluation.
r Resolution:
Disagree.
4 f.
Comments 21-11, 26-3, and 84-2 express concern that an individual might fail an operating test because of the individuals with whom he/she is assigned, and recommend that an applicant be judged solely on his/her own abilities.
Resolution:
Agree.
This is addressed in Examiner Standards.
t g.
Comment 37-13 indicates that S 55.45(b)(3) shows inadequate under-standing of current industry practices and standards for simulators and the administrative and technical burdens associated with the proposed rule.
Resolution:
Noted.
l h.
Comment 36-17. suggested specific wording in S 55.45 with respect to j
operating-tests for special operators.
i Resolution:
Reference to special senior operators ha's been deleted in 5 55.45.
Enclosure B 29
i.
Although Comment 7-3 was provided in response to the subject ques-tion, 'the commenter's primary point is that knowledge of Technical Specifications should not be compulsory for an R0.
Resolution:
Noted.
Commenter misunderstood this question regarding simulators.
j.
Comment 7-4 recommends a random selection (the commenter, although responding to the question, apparently misinterpreted the question as applying to operator requalification rather than simulator performance
-testing).
Resolution:
Noted.
k.
Comments 74-3 and 85-28 caution the NRC to ensure that any regulations with respect to simulators do not discourage improvements as advances in simulation technology are made.
i Resolution:
The regulations and regulatory guidance proposed have been written specifically to encourage improvements and advances in i
simulation technology.
This belief served as one impetus for the term "another simulation device" as used in 10 CFR 55.4.
- Further, the discussion section of RG 1.149 refers to " rapidly changing tech-1 nology in the simulation industry" and suggests that this might lead a facility licensee to seek alternative ways to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.
1.
Comment 76-4 expresses concern that the NRC's simulation facility requirements provide flexibility for simulators already in existence or under construction.
The commenter indicates that as the rule was issued "i
for comment, for a simulator that was partially completed the utility would be required, in effect, to halt construction pending NRC approval of the plan by which the facility was being developed.
Resolution:
The Commission has provided flexibility for simulation facilities in existence or under construction by allowing 1 year from the effective date of the rule for a plan to be submitted for simulation facility development and use and 4 years for actual availability of a simulation facility.
Further, all simulators known to be under development or planned, are believed to have been designed to ANS 3.5 standards, and thus should require only a certi-fication from the facili.ty licensee to this effect.
F.
Licenses - Subpart F i
l 1.
Many commenters question the issuance of special senior operator licenses.
a.
Comments 21-7, 28-6, 30-10, 31-2, 31-5, 33-6, 37-2, 42-7, 45-2, 45-5, i
46-2, 46-5, 62-2, 62-5, 74-2, and 91-4 question the statutory authority of the Commission to issue special senior operator licenses.
I l
b.
Comments 19-16, 19-17, 19-18, 19-21, 19-23, 19-24, 19-29, 19-34, 21-16, i
23-2, 28-7, 28-13, 31-2; 31-34, 39-16', 39-17, 39-18', 39-21', 39-23, 39-24, 39-29, 39-34, 43-4, 45-2, 45-34, 46-2, 46-34, 47-3, 52-4, 61-2, 62-2, 62-34, Enclosure B 30
_69-1, 72-1, 78-8, and 90-2 indicate that the present NRC requirements in 4
NUREG-0737 concerning certification of instructors, are sufficient and that licensing of these instructors is unnecessary.
c.
Comments 31-2, 31-24, 33-6, 37-2, 41-2, 43-1, 45-2, 45-24, 46-2, 46-24, 51-2, 62-2, 62-24, 72-1, 72-6, and 90-2 indicate that the special senior cperator license should not be implemented because INPO accreditation of the facility training programs includes instructor training and qualification procedures.
The commentors also indicate that the special senior operator license for instructors was inconsistent with the NRC's Policy Statement on Training and Qualifications.
Coment 61-4 indicates that the regulations should be consistent with the Policy Statement on Training and Qualification.
d.
Comments 28-8, 31-14, 32-9, 37-5, 45-14, 46-14, 47-3, 52-1, 62-14, 67-3, 71-2, 73-2, and 74-4 suggest that the definition of special senior operator be modified to delete instructors.
Resolution: Although the Commission has the authority under Sec-tion 107 of the Atomic Energy Act to issue special senior operator licenses, special senior operator licenses have been deleted from the final rule. This action is in recognition of the industry commitment to INPO accreditation of training programs, which includes instructor training, qualification and evaluation, and is in keeping with the intent of the " Commission Policy Statement on Training and Qualifica-tions of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," dated March 20, 1985.
Indus-try efforts in implementing instructor training, qualification and i
evaluation programs will be monitored as directed by the Policy Statement.
Until a program is accredited, current requrements will continue for instructor certification.
Moreover, senior operator licenses limited to fuel handling will l
continue to be issued as they are currently.
However, since INPO accreditation includes instructor evaluation, current NRC instructor certification will not continue.
i 2.
Many commenters make specific suggestions regarding the issuance of special senior operator licenses.
These comments ranged from the duration of the license, the qualifications of holders of the license, to the content of the requalification program for special senior operators.
l a.
Comments 1-1 and G4-2 recommend that the issuance of senior operator l
licenses be limited to people who imediately supervise reactor operations and that licensing others who do not operate on a daily basis is counter-i productive.
Coment 9-2 questions whether the special SRO license for instructors would be differentiated from that of a fuel handler.
l b.
Coments 22-3, 22-5, 26-13, 32-24, 35-12, 37-9, 42-3, 59-12, 60-12, 65-12, 72-5, 72-8, 72-10, 78-7, and 84-11 suggest that sections in 10 CFR 55 include a specific listing of what medical, written examinations, operating tests and requalification programs would be required for fuel handlers and instructors.
Specific language changes are recommended by comments 13-10, j
19-15, 19-27, 19-46, 19-49, 19-50, 20-2, 28-2, 28-20, 30-19, 36-13, 36-17, 37-8, 39-15, 39-27, 39-46, 39-49, 39-50, 46-79, 46-82, 46-84, 46-85, 52-25, 67-5, 67-17, and 76-9.
l l
Enclosure B 31
c.
Comments 19-26, 22-2, 30-12, 31-20, 36-12, 36-14, 39-26, 45-20, 46-20, 52-9, 62-20, 72-4, 74-8 suggest that the medical requirements of 10 CFR 55 be deleted for special SRO instructors.
d.
Comments 13-2, 19-22, 30-3, 30-4, 31-32,-35-13, 35-14, 39-22, 45-32, 46-32, 52-26, 62-32, 78-9, and 81-5 question the relationship of.special senior licenses to current senior operators or instructors.
Comments 2-3, 9-15, 19-15, 31-34, 34-2,-39-15, 45-34, 46-34, 62-34, 72-7, 72-11, 72-13,
)
72-14, 72-15 and 78-8 discuss problems with the proposed special senior operator requirements.
Comments 14-12, 27-8, 30-2, 31-5, 32-10, 36-9, 37-1, 41-2, 42-8, 45-5 46-5, 47-2, 48-2, 51-2, 62-5, 69-3, 71-1, 71-4, 72-1, s
72-3, 73-1, 73-4, 78-5, 78-6, 79-1, 85-4, 87-1, 87-2, ano 131-4 also dis-cuss implementation problems for special licenses.
Comments 46-93 and 46-95 recommend dropping the words "special senior e.
operator" from 10 CFR 50.74.
Resolution:
These comments are noted.
Since the Commission is delet-ing the implementation of the special senior operator license from the final rule, no further resolution is necessary.
3.
Several commenters support the issuance of special senior operator licenses.
Comments 8-7, 16-3, 17-2, 22-6, 26-8, 49-7, 59-7, 60-7, 65-7, 82-6, 84-6, and 84-7 support additional staff licenses.
Comment 34-1 supports requiring requalification examinations for instructors.
Resolution:
These comments are noted.
4.
Comment 35-15 requests a definition of " actively performing the duties of,"
as used in S 55.53(e).
Resolution:
" Actively performing the functions of an operator or senior operator" has been defined in S 55.4, " Definitions," to mean an individual who takes responsibility for and carries out a position l
on the shift crew that requires the subject license as defined in the facility's Technical Specifications.
At a minimum, this will consist i
of seven 8-hour shifts or five 12-hour shifts per calendar quarter.
L l
5.
Comment 47-17 suggests the substitution of satisfactory participation in an approved requalification program in lieu of reexaminations or other demonstrations of competence, outlined in S 55.53(e).
6.
Comments 8-5, 13-11, 13-32, 23-13, 31-35, 35-16, 41-6, 45-35, 46-35, 51-6, 62-35, 77-7, 81-6, and 85-30 state that a utility should not have to wait for NRC concurrence before returning an operator to licensed duties.
This limits.the flexibility of the facility licensee.
The determination of satisfactory knowledge should be in accordance with approved administrative
{
and training procedures and in the purview of the license.
l Resolution:
It is not intended that NRC concurrence be required before returning each operator to licensed duties.
Rather, the l
licensee will be required to complete a minimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> _of shift i
functions under the direction of the operator or senior operator in the position to which that individual will be assigned.
I Enclosure B 32 i
,-.---_m.,n,-
--r---n--
- - - - ~ ~ - ~
-=
= _.
7.
Coments 8-3, 8-4, 24-2, 28-21, 28-29, 30-20, 30-22, 31-36, 31-39, 33-7, 37-17, 43-10, 45-36, 45-39, 46-36, 46-39, 52-27, 62-36, 62-39, 69-15, 71-19, i
73-19, 74-18, 82-7, and 91-6, strongly disagree with the intent of 9 55.53(f) and S 50-74 in that the issue of certifying need and utilization of licensed personnel in positions within the facility should be a facility's management prerogative.
Resolution:
Disagree.
S 55.53(f) does not contradict management's prerogative to use staff within license conditions.
8.
Coments 71-18 and 73-18 recomend rewriting the first sentence of S 55.53(f) [now S 55.53(g)] to state:
"The facility licensee shall notify the Commission within 30 days of the following."
Resolution:
Noted.
The facility's responsibility is covered in 5 50.74.
9.
Comment 72-12 indicates that the requirement for "the facility licensee" to " notify the Commission within 30 days," etc., is a burden on the licensees and serves no apparent purpose.
Resolution: This documentation is needed by the NRC as data to
~
j support the facility's fulfillment of 9 50.54(m) requirements with respect to licensed operator / senior operating staffing levels.
10.
Comment 80-6 recomends removal of the words "for a period of four months or longer" from S 55.53(e).
Resolution:
Agree.
This phrase has been deleted.
11.
Coments 13-12, 16-4, 19-47, 31-37, 35-17, 37-18, 39-47, 41-7, 45-37, 46-37, 47-18, 51-7, 62-37, and 74-19 suggest S 55.53(f)(4) be deleted as ambiguous or further defined.
If meaningful legislation in regard to crime reporting is a concern, then the crime list should be definitive and provided for public coment.
Resolution:
Agree.
S 55.53(f)(4) has been rewritten as S 55.53(g).
j l
As to criminal behavior, NRC is interested in any and all convictions l
of a licensee for felony.
The NRC considers that there may be a rela-l tionship between criminal convictions and job performance.
12.
Coments 6-1, 82-8, 87-14, and 91-7 commend the extension of the license renewal interval to 5 years as a step in reducing the paperwork burden on the facility and the Comission.
Coments 26-9, 26-10, 49-8, 49-9, 53-4, i
59-8, 59-9, 60-8, 60-9, 65-8, 65-9, 84-7, and 84-8 indicate that the l
proposed S 55.55 that changes the license renewal period to 5 years is a I
marked improvement, but question why licenses need to be renewed at j
all. The comenters indicate that renewal is purely an administrative requirement that did not help determine the continued suitability of an operator for licensed activities.
Resolution:
Noted.
This renewal information is necessary for NRC documentation of licensed reactor operators / senior reactor operators.
Enclosure B 33
=
1 13.
Comments 14-3, 19-48, 23-3, 32-21, 35-19, 36-22, 39-48. 47-19, 54-2, 67-16, 74-20, 76-10, and 80-7 indicate that the license expiration period (every 5 years) and the medical examination requirement (every 2 years) should be made to coincide.
The commenters recommend that the license expiration be every 6 years or that the previous medical examination be accepted with the license renewal application.
Resolution:
Agree.
The license expiration has been changed to 6 years, 14.
Comment 46-83 recommends that S 55.55(b) be revised to also allow filing i
an application by telecopy or electronic medium to expand the methods to be state-of-the-art.
Resolution:
Documentation of the filing, including the date, is needed.
NRC is investigating the possibility of alternative communi-cations in this context and for other filings as well.
Regulations for such alternatives will be promulgated separately as appropriate.
15.
Comment 74-21 indicates that in 5 55.57(b)(1) " medical condition and general health" need clarification.
Resolution:
The term is considered clear enough for the regulation.
Further clarification is provided in ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983.
G.
Requalification 1.
Many comments were received regarding the relationship of the requalifica-tion program requirements and INPO accreditation of performance-based training programs.
a.
Comments 19-14, 19-51, 19-52, 19-53, 19-54, 28-2, 28-22, 28-23, 31-40, i
32-23, 33-8, 36-23, 36-24, 37-19, 39-14, 39-51, 39-52, 39-53, 39-54, 45-40, 46-40, 47-20, 47-21, 47-22, 47-23, 62-40, 71-20, 71-21, 71-22, 73-20, 73-21, 73-22, 80-8, 80-9, 80-10, 80-11, 81-7, and 82-9 indicate that 5 55.57(b)(2)(ii) and (iii) should not require NRC approval of the requali-fication program because S 55.59 defines the requirements for the program, and these programs will be accredited by INPO.
Commenters indicate that NRC always can audit the program if concerns arise.
Some commenters indi-j cate that NRC approval of requalification programs was inconsistent with the Policy Statement dated March 20, 1985.
b.
Comment 52-28 recommends that S 55.57(b)(2)(iii) either define the content of an operating test as it applies to S 55.59 or delete the requirement.
c.
Comment 91-8 indicates that the use of learning objectives developed from a task analysis should be permitted for requalification examinations 2
once the utility has performed the analysis, f
d.
Comment 21-13 recommends that in S 55.59(c) the remainder of the sec-tion.after " systems approach to training" be deleted because the program will now be developed from the systems approach to training.
t Enclosure B 34
e.
Comment 23-15 requests clarification on which of the "following re-1 quirements" are met by using a systems approach to training (the remainder of 9 55.59(c) or just the content of lectures or on-the-job training).
]
f.
Comments 31-41, 45-41, 46-41, 48-9, and 62-41 request that S 55.59(a)(2).
be expanded to indicate that the requalification examination will be based upon the facility's performance-based requalification program and recent
- ~
operating events of significance.
g.
Comment 85-31 provides a proposed replacement for 5 55.59 to facilitate implementation of systematic approaches to training.
Resolution:
NRC approval of requalification programs will remain as a requirement, in keeping with the NRC's mission to protect the public health and safety.
A list of content areas will be added to 5 55.59 to clarify the issue of examination and operating test requirement.
i Appendix A is intended to be replaced by a systems approach to train-ing, if implemented at the facility.
In its Final Policy Statement 3
j on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, the i
i Commission endorsed industry-accredited programs as performance based.
]
l 2.
Many comments suggest specific changes to S 55.59(c), "Requalification Program Requirements." These comments relate to the program requirements j
specified for a program if it is not developed using a systematic approach to training.
Comments in this category include:
9-18, 9-19, 9-20, 9-21, j
9-22, 9-23, 13-15, 14-15, 19-56, 19-57, 19-58, 21-14, 26-11, 26-12, 28-24, 28-25, 30-21, 31-42, 31-43, 31-44, 32-25, 33-9, 33-10, 36-25, 39-56, 39-57, 39-58, 45-42, 45-43, 45-44, 46-42, 46-43, 46-44, 46-87, 46-90, 49-10, 59-10, 59-11, 60-10, 60-11, 62-42, 62-43, 62-44, 65-10, 65-11, 67-19, 69-13, 69-14, g
76-11, 82-10, 82-11, 84-9, 84-10, 85-31, and 100-1.
i*
Resolution: A list of content areas for the comprehensive written requalification examination and operating test has been added to 5 55.59.
$ 55.59(c) will remain with an "or" to provide an interim measure from the current Appendix A (detailed verbatim as 5 55.59(c))
until each facility implements a systems approach to training.
More-over, if a facility does not implement a systems approach to training and for test and research reactors, current requirements will continue.
i 3.
Comments 9-17, 13-13, 14-13, 31-38, 41-8, 43-11, 45-38, 46-38, 51-8, 62-38, 77-8, and 91-9 request a definition in 5 55.59 of " actively and extensively engaged" and indicate that this term did not apply to managers, engineers, i
and instructors.
Resolution:
" Actively and extensively engaged" has been deleted from I
the final rule.
Therefore, active participation in the facility's requalification program, including attending all requalification training and satisfactorily completing requalification examinations, constitute the basic requirement to maintain a license.
- However, i
i before assuming licensed duties, the conditions of a license in
(
l 55.53(e) must be met.
4.
Comments 2-4, 2-5, and 2-6 request that in S 55.59 the word " annual" be deleted from the requalification program and requalification examination Enclosure B 35 l
so that flexibility would be provided to cover material that is beneficial but that does not fit within an annual cycle because of other required topics. The commenters note that S 55.59(c)(1) discusses a 2 year requal-ification program cycle and recommend that all references to " annual" be deleted and that the 2 year cycle serve as the basis for this requalifica-tion requirement.
Comments 19-55, 39-55, 47-24, 69-12, 71-23, and 73-23 recomend that the 2 year cycle be dropped in favor of a continuous sched-ule.
The commenters indicated that 2 years was based on license renewal schedules, which are proposed to be extended to 5 years.
Resolution:
Agree.
More flexibility is necessary.
The frequency of the requalification written examination has been changed to a maximum of every 2 years, and to every year for the operating test.
The re-qualification program must be conducted for a continuous period not to exceed 24 months.
The specific cycle will be approved for each facility by the NRC.
5.
Coment 40-4 questions whether it is the intent of S 55.59 to impose tighter requalification program requirements for research, test, and training reactors.
The commenter provides as an example, the wording of 8 55.59(a)(1),
which would appear to render invalid the biennial written requalifications examinations that are currently utilized by these factors.
Resolution:
It is intended that S 55.59(C)(7) be interpreted that current requalification requirements for research, test and training reactors be continued.
6.
Comment 67-18 indicates that in S 55.57(b)(2)(iii) the requirement for passing annual examinations is redundant because 6 55.57(b)(2)(ii) already requires the candidate to successfully complete the annual requalification program.
7.
Comment 52-29 recommends that in S 55.59(a)(2) the words "a licensing or" be inserted in front of "requalification examination" to allow credit in the requalification program for passing a full licensing examination during the year preceding the requalification examination.
Comment 52-30 suggests that the requalification examination ~be less comprehensive in scope.
Resolution:
Disagree.
Licensing and requalification programs and examinations are not intended to be equivalent.
The requalification examination and operating test should be comprehensive examinations to evaluate an individual's maintenance of proficiency in all areas of license responsibility.
8.
Comment 14-14 quest. ions why documentation of a licensed operator's requal-ification be retained until the operator's license is renewed.
The commenter recommends that the records be required to be maintained for 4 years.
Resolution:
As a policy matter, records are generally maintained until they are supplied.
NRC considers this a valid reason for the requirement.
An additional reason is that this requirement supports enforcement action needs.
Enclosure B 36
9.
Comments 53-5 and 55-2 recommend deleting the requirement for passing an annual requalification examination.
Comment 53-5 notes that other pro-fessions (engineers, doctors, pilots, lawyers, etc.) are not required to retake academic requalification examinations periodically.
Resolution:
Disagree.
Although it is inappropriate to compare dis-similar professions, the professions above do have reexamination /
recertification requirements which, in some cases (e.g., pilots),
require reexamination and in others require participation in continu-ing training programs.
10.
Comments 68-1 and 68-2 indicate that further auditing of operator training programs and the administration of requalification examinations by the NRC was creating undue pressure on licensed personnel and asks the NRC to re-consider implementation of this requirement.
Comment 80-10 indicates that administration of requalification examinations by the NRC is unnecessary.
Comment 13-14 indicates that NRC examinations should be in lieu of facility examinations.
Comments 32-3 and 87-15 indicate that for INPO-accredited programs, NRC-administered requalification examinations, if administered at all, should be only an operating test.
Resolution:
The NRC has always had the option of administering requalification examinations, this change only clarifies the point.
While NRC administration of requalification examinations may place additional stress on some licensees, it is not agreed that the stress is undue.
NRC-administered examinations have, on several occasions, identified serious weaknesses that had not been identified by facil-ity licensee requalification examinations.
Moreover, NRC-administered i*
requalification examination are in lieu of facility examinations.
Comments 46-88 and 85-32 recommend that in 5 55.59(c)(3)(iii) the word "significant" be added because each year many procedures and design changes occur that have little impact on the operator, also the operator should l
use the procedures even if he knows them.
1 Resolution:
Disagree.
It is the operator's responsibility to be aware of all procedure and design changes and what effect, if any, they have on safe plant nperation.
H.
Other Comments 1.
Comment 46-91 recommends that in 5 55.61(b)(1) the words " willful or j
intentional material false statement" be used because applications are l
completed based on recall of information and it is unwarranted and violated due process unless there is a willful intention to deceive.
i Resolution:
It is not a violation of "due process" to suspend, modi-l fy, or revoke a license if the regulator determines that the " false statement" was material to the grant of the license, whether or not there was any " intent" to mislead.
l Enclosure B 37
L 2.
Comment 80-1 indicates that Section 306 of'the Waste Policy Act provides j
the NRC to promulgate either regulations or guidance and that the NRC should not assume that regulations are mandated by the Act.
i Resolution:
Noted. Guidance has been used by the NRC, where consid-ered appropriate, to meet the requirements of Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of.1982, Pub. L.97-425, including the Com-i mission Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear j
Power Plant Personnel.
3.
Comment 47-1 indicates the opinion that issues relating to qualification
-and training, medical evaluations and use of simulators in training are best left to industry programs.such as the agreements between NRC and NUMARC or to the facility licensee.
Resolution:
A ree in part.
Hoh ver, these regulations are within 9
the Commission s statutory authority and stated mission.
i j
4.
Comments 20-1, 21-17 and 25-1 indicates that insufficient time was provided for meaningful review and preparation of comments.
]!
Resolution:
The Public Comment period was longer than most proposed rules. ~ Moreover, comments received after the end date of the public F
comment period were included in the Commission's analysis of public j
comments.
5.
Comments 19-12, 30-1, 31-1, 39-12, 45-1, 46-1, 62-1, 63-1 and 85-2 indicate 3
that Part 55 should clearly state in the preamble that these new regula-4 i
tions incorporate and supersede documents such as NUREG-0737, NUREG-0060, and SER's.
Resolution:
Agree.
A statement has been added to the preamble that these rules supersede all current regulations for operator licenses.
i 6.
Comments 19-13 and 39-13 request the opportunity to comment on the pro-posed regulations and regulatory guides again after initial comments are j
incorporated.
j Resolution:
The only significant changes to the proposed regulations l
and regulatory guides that resulted from public comments were changes to reduce some requirements from those initially proposed.
Therefore, there is no need for an additional public review.
7.'
Comments 9-4, 9-5, 9-8, 9-13, 9-16, 19-59, 30-13, 36-1, 37-10, 39-59, 42-7, 46-71, 46-72, 47-5, and 52-6 suggest changes dealing with misspellings in t
the Federal Reaister notice, editing, or format.
Resolution:
These comments were reviewed by an NRC technical editor and incorporated as appropriate.
I 8.
Comments 1-1, 7-5, 18-1, 18a-2, 19-28, 36-2, 39-28, 55-1, 69-5, 71-6, 73-6, l
78-10, 85-1, 94-2, and 107-13 suggest additions that are not appropriate for regulations.
Comments 7-5, 16-2, 18-1, 46-86, 55-1, and 64-2 do not.
i pertain to the proposed regulations, e
i l
Enclosure B 38
Resolution:
Noted.
I.
Conformina Amendment - 10 CFR 50.74 1.
Comments 2-9, 14-16, 35-18 and 46-92 question whether licensee in $ 50.74 referred to facility licensee or the licensed individual.
Some commenters recommend using facility when referring to the facility licensee and licenses when referring to operators.
Resolution:
The definitions for Part 50 are found in 5 50.2.
The terms " facility licensee" and " licensee" are also defined in S 55.4.
2..
Comments 14-17, 21-1, 32-26 and 85-33 question whether the reporting re--
quirements for notification of reassignment are on the basis of how the li-conse is used (i.e., RO, SRO, Shift Foreman, training, etc.) or on whether the license is necessary for the position; when the individual receives a promotion to management or when the individual is reassigned by the facility.
Resolution:
The part of 5 50.74 referenced refers to 55.33(a)(3).
In this part it is indicated that the facility licensee must certify a need for a licensed operator or senior operator.
If the reassignment j
affects this need, then the NRC should be notified.
3.
Comments 13-1, 14-18, 14-19, 19-60', 21-2, 23-1, 23-14, 39-60, 41-1, 43-3, 51-1, 69-2, 67-2, 69-15, 71-24, 73-24, and 77-9 request definition of the terms "other conditions" and " crime" in 5 50.74, as they are too vague as written.
Further some commenters indicate that conviction of minor traf-fic violations should not require reports to the NRC.
Resolution:
Agree.
S 50.74(d) has been deleted and 5 55.53(g) has been reworded.
4.
Comment 46-94 requests clarification of whether the termination in 5 50.74 is for cause or for any reason.
Resolution:
" Termination" means for any reason.
This provision is for recordkeeping purposes.
5.
Comment 66-3 requests that 50.74 be changed to read "within 30 days of becomina aware of the conditions..."
Resolution:
Noted.
This is the intent of the provisions.
I Enclosure B 39
ENCLOSURE C RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC COW 9ENTS REGULATORY GUIDES 1.134, 1.149, and 1.8
(
i i
i i
Sep'tember, 1985
+
I.
LIST OF COPMENTERS Letter Number Commenter R. N. Meyer, Professional Reactor Operator Society 1
D. E. LaBarge, Professional Reactor Operator Society, 2
Region I Office 3
N. S. Elliot, Babcock & Wilcox I
4 L. S. Goodman, Lacrosse, WI N. S. Elliot, American Nuclear Society 5
6 L. Roberts, Indian Point, NY 7
- 0. E. Howard, Toledo, OH 8
G. J. Vargo, Jr., Fulton, NY 9
R. Higgins, Region III 10 D. A. Dvorak, Oakdale, CT 11 R. C. Dawney, Hartsville, SC 12 E. J. Fuerst, Chicago, IL 13 J. T. Beckham, Jr., Georgia Power
- 0. R. Lee, Public Service Company of Colorado 14 M. D. Schultz, Northeast Utilities 15 16 M. Navarro, Avila Beach, CA 17 R. C. Kraemer, Northeast Utilities 18 J. N. Marquis, Los Altos, CA 19 R. J. Mette, Vista, CA A. E. Bolon, University of Missouri-Rolla 20 21 R. E. Landrum, Antioch, IL 22 M. A. Perry, Big Lake, MN G. L. Koester, Kansas Gas and Electric Company 23 24 D. J. Johnson, Russellville, AR C. Barton, University of Missouri-Rolla 25 26 L. L. Weckbaugh, Dunkirk, MD B. D. Kenyon, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company 27 J. T. Enos, Arkansas Power & Light Company 28 M. Straka, University of Missouri-Rolla 29 E. Chatfield, Yankee Atomic Electric Company 30 31 T. C. Houghton, KMC, Inc.
32 H. B. Tucker, Duke Power Company 33 W. L. Stewart, Virginia Power G. W. Beale, Wildwood, IL 1
34
- 0. W. Dixon, Jr., South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 35 36 W. H. Jens, Detroit Edison R. W. Deutsch, General Physics Corporation 37 D. E. Geltz, Texas Engineering Experiment Station j
38 M.0. Medford, Southern California Edison Company 39 W. L. Whittemore, GA Technologies, Inc.
40 J. W. Williams, Jr., Atomic Industrial 'orum, Inc.
i
~
41 R. E. Helfrich, Yankee Atomic Electric :ompany 42 J. R. Thorpe, GPU Nuclear Corporation 43 G. R. Westafer, Florida Power Corporation 44 R. L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District 45 D. Musolf, Northern States Power Company 46 1
Enclosure C
Letter Number Commenter 47 C. W. Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Corporation 48 P. M. Richardson, Public Service of New Hampshire 49 J. A. Tiernan, Baltimore Gas and Electric 50 L. Spalding, Address Unknown 51 J. W. Williams, Jr., Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
52 J. D. Shiffer, Pacific Gas and Electric Company 53 T. G. Skaskal, Cleveland, WI
~
54 J. Baker, Benton City, WA 55 J. H. Schilling, Bay City, WI 56 N. W. Reynolds, Bishop, Lieberman, Cook, Purcell & Reynolds 57 J. J. Carey, Duquesne Light 58 J. Doering, Jr., Philadelphia, PA 59 J. R. Hill, St. Leonard, MD 60 B. D. Hiestand, St. Leonard, MD 61 J. H. Miller, Jr., Nuclear Utilities Management and Human Resources Committee 62 L. F. Dale, Mississippi Power & Light Company 63 J. B. Hudson, Cary, NC 64 C. M. Gray, Mishicot, WI 65 R. L. Wenderlich, Dunkirk, MD 66 W. D. Harrington, Boston Edison Company 67 G. Alexander, Commonwealth Edison 68 J. Friedrichs, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers 69 B. D. Withers, Portland General Electric Company 70 M. A. Kay, Reed College 71 W. A. Nichols, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company 72 A. E. Scherer, Combustion Engineering, Inc.
73 W. G. Smith, Indiana & Michigan Electric Company 74 J. Peterson, Professional Reactor Operator Society 75 T. C. Houghton, KMC, Inc.
76 R. W. Kober, Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation 77 B. G. Hooten, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation 78 E. P. Rahe, Jr., Westinghouse Electric Corporation 79 H. J. Cato, Custom Training Programs 80 D. C. Hintz, Wisconsin Public Service Corporation 81 W. G. Counsil and W. F. Fee, Northeast Utilities 82 S. R. Zimmerman, Carolina Power & Light Company 83 A. F. DiMeglio, Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission 84 J. M. Yoe, Lusby, MD 85 G. C. Sorensen, Washington Public Power Supply System 86 J. C. McKibben and D. M. Alger, University of Missouri 87 J. W. Hufham, Tennessee Valley Authority 88 L. Clark, Jr., Massachusetts Institi '.e of Technology 89 W. J. Richards, American Nuclear Se;iety 90 G. D. Whittier, Maine Yankee Atomi Power Company 91 R. L. Mitt 1, Public Service Electric and Gas Company 92 D. L. Hubbard, Granbury, TX 93 W. G. Ruzicka, Union Carbide Corporation 94 M. Navarro, Avila Beach, CA 95 L. L. Weckbaugh, Dunkirk, MD Enclosure C 2
Letter Number Commenter 96 L. L. Weckbaugh, Dunkirk, MD 97 B. R. Clements, Texas Utilities Generating Company 98 L. L. Weckbaugh, Dunkirk, MD 99 R. J. Kennedy, Northeast Utilities 100
- 0. W. Dixon, Jr., South Carolina Electric & Gas Company 101 W. L. Whittemore, GA Technologies, Inc.
102 W. L. Whittemore, GA Technologies, Inc.
103 R. L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District 104 R. L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power District 105 J. A. Tiernan, Baltimore Gas and Electric 106 J. A. Tiernan, Baltimore Gas and Electric 107 J. D. Shiffer, Pacific Gas and Electric Company 108 L. A. Spalding, Address Unknown 109 C. W. Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Company 110 C. W. Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Company 111 B. D. Hiestand, St. Leonard, MD 112 J. R. Hill, St. Leonard, MO 113 L. L. Weckbaugh, Dunkirk, MD 114 D. Musolf, Northern States Power Company 115 R. L. Andrews, Omaha Public Power Company 116 J. R. Hill, St. Leonard, MO 117 G. Alexander, Commonwealth Edison 118 R. L. Wenderlich, Dunkirk, MD 119 H. B. Tucker, Duke Power Company 120 M. R. Edelman, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company 121 R. L. Jones, Perry, OH 122 B. R. Clements, Texas Utilities Generating Company 123 J. A. Tiernan, Baltimore Gas and Electric 7
124 R. P. Crouse, Toledo Edison 125 G. R. Westafer, Florida Power Corporation 126
- 8. D. Kenyon, Pennsylvania Power & Light Company 127 W. L. Stewart, Virginia Power 128 J. M. Yoe, Lusby, MO 129 J. M. Yoe, Lusby, MD 130 W. J. Richards, American Nuclear Society 131 G. C. Sorenson, Washington Public Power Supply System 132 R.L. Mitt 1, Public Service Electric and Gas Company 133 C. W. Fay, Wisconsin Electric Power Company 134 M. O. Medford, Southern California Edison Company 135 W. D. Harrington, Boston Edison Company Comments are referred to by two numbers.
The first number corresponds to the letter number and the second refers to the comment number within the letter.
For example, comment 2-1 refers to the first comment in letter 2.
In Sec-tion II, III, and IV of this report comments are grouped in general catego'-
les followed by the resolution to that series of comments.
An index of specific comments can be found in Section V.
i Enclosure C 3
II.
RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC COMENTS ON THREE REGULATORY GUIDES ASSOCIATED WITH i
OPERATORS' LICENSES.
r f
A.
Regulatory Guide 1.134, " MEDICAL EVALUATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITY PERSONNEL
{
REQUIRING OPERATOR LICENSES"
]
1.
Several comments support the revisions to RG 1.134.
a.
Comment 117-1 agrees with the concept of giving medical examinations utilizing qualified personnel with abnormalities when discovered, evaluated 3
by a licensed medical practitioner (MD).
j b.
Comment 93-1 agrees with the requirement to have a potentially dis-qualifying condition (mental) evaluated by a psychologist or psychiatrist.
Further, the facility management should initiate these evaluations follow-j ing their initial behavioral observations.
i r
I-Resolution:
Noted.
i I
2.
Many comments were received in regard to the application of RG 1.134 to operators at test and research reactors.
Comments 38-1, 40-2, 70-1, j-83-2, 86-2, 86-3, 86-7, 88-2, 102-1, and 130-1 dispute the applicability j
j of the new extensive medical requirements to research, test and training r
j reactor facilities.
Comments 38-3 and 102-1 recommend the retention of f
L present regulations for these reactor types.
Comment 83-3 states that the current system is adequate to determine operator fitness for test, re-search and training reactors, and should be maintained until the recom-1 mandations of the ANS 15.4 Standards Committee are known.
Comments 20-3 h
and 25-2 disagree with the "no solo" restrictions for these reactors.
L t
Resolution:
The intention for research, test and training reactors is to maintain the status quo with respect to medical requirements
' ~
l until the ANS 15.4 Standards Committee recommends changes.
i l
3.
Comments 96-4 and 105-4 request a more concise definition of the term i
" disabled" which is used throughout the regulatory guide.
(
Resolution:
RG 1.134 endorses ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 without exception.
I 4.
Several comments express concern with the qualifications of the persons who would judge the medical condition of operators.
i a.
Comment 86-6 expresses concern with Subpart C whereby facilit' man-1 agement is asked to make subjective judgments in regard to medical suit-l i
ability of their operators that are now made by an NRC-appointed hysi-t l
cian.
Comments 96-5 and 105-5 address the concern over removing authority i
l l
l l
i i
t Enclosure C 4
l
from the licensee's medical practitioner and giving increased authority to the NRC " medical examiners." Both commenters agree that the final deter-mination of an applicant's medical condition should remain with the medical practitioner.
b.
Comment 32-29 suggests that the burden of assuming medical well being should rest with the utility, not the NRC.
Some documentation required by the NRC should be deleted.
c.
Comment 38-2 questions the requirement to have identified mental con-ditions followed up by professionally trained individuals, d.
Comment 117-2 questions the use of behavioral data in medical evalua-tion of operators.
Resolution:
The criteria of ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 provides the basis for a physician to evaluate and make recommendations to the facility's management about the medical condition of an operator.
The facility's management is responsible for certifying the suitability of the appli-cant for a license.
NRC has the responsibility for making an assess-ment of the applicant for a license including the applicant's medical fitness.
Neither the facility nor the NRC staff will make medical judgments. When a conditional license is requested, the NRC will use a qualified medical expert to review the medical evidence to make its determination.
5.
Comments 31-59, 45-59, 46-59, 62-59, 96-3, and 105-3 disagree with provid-ing the qualifications of individuals in the " team environment" when a operator receives a "no solo" restriction on his license.
The burden of responsibility for ensuring that two or more conditional licensees do not operate together should be left up to facility management.
This will allow greater flexibility in shift assignments, f
t Resolution:
Agree.
RG 1.134 endorses ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 without exception.
L 6.
Comments 108-1 and 108-2 discuss the potentially disqualifying conditions outlined in Sections 5.3.8 and 5.4.15 of ANSI /ANS 3.4, and the subsequent evaluation by a licensed psychologist, psychiatrist or physician.
Concern is raised over the fact that no provision is made for the operator to ob-tain his own evaluation which would carry equal weight in a competency hearing.
Resolution:
This is unnecessary.
The operator as an applicant has the same appeal rights in this area as in any other area under 10 CFR 2.103(b)(2).
7.
Comment 117-3 lists the location of medical information at this multi-unit utility and states that requests for information should be directed to the Medical Service Advisor.
Resolution:
Noted.
This is an internal consideration for the facility licensee, not the NRC.
Enclosure C 5
8.
-Comments 96-2 and 105-2 indicate concern over retaining medical informa-tion and facility notification to the NRC within 30 days of individual mental or physical problems which could affect job performance.
Concern is expressed on the effects this reporting will have on in place alcohol /
drug abuse programs.
All medical information sent to the NRC should be subject to the Privacy Act.
Resolution:
Agree.
All medical or other personally identifiable in-formation is subject to the Privacy Act.
Moreover, alcohol and drug abuse programs are covered by a separate Fitness for Duty Policy Statement (51 FR 27921) published August 4, 1986, by the Commission.
9.
Comment 32-27 requests consistent guidance for all medical examinations, citing the biennial medical examination and the annual respiratory pro-tection program physicals.
Resolution:
Although it is agreed that consistent guidance should be provided, the purposes of the two types of examinations are different.
As a result, the guidance for these medical examinations is different.
The facility may coordinate the examinations to eliminate overlapping cost.
10.
Comment 32-28 does not agree with the requirement to submit a completed Form NRC-396 for license renewals.
The fact that license renewal is requested should indicate that the medical evaluation is up to date and satisfactory.
Resolution:
Revised Form NRC-396 is consistent with the commenter's intent in that, for routine renewals, considerably less detail is re-quired to be submitted than is the case with the current Form NRC-396.
g 11.
Comment 93-1 disagrees with a mandatory requirement to forward a formal report to a physician addressing absenteeism and other behavioral inci-dents.
Further, the NRC should place the responsibility on facility man-agement to determine when and if behavioral data should be forwarded.
Resolution:
Noted.
The requirement in ANSI /ANS 3.4-1983 to submit a report to the physician ensures that potentially important informa-tion is made available to the medical practitioner, rather than hav-ing the information provided on an exception basis, where the indivi-l duals making the decision are not trained to recognize whether be-i havioral information is important or not, i
i 12.
Comments 85-5 and 86-4 want a better reporting form f6r medical records.
Resolution:
The NRC does not intend to create another reporting form beyond the proposed revisions to Form NRC-396.
13.
Comment 100-3 suggests moving the last ifne of RG 1.134, Section B, deal-ing with clarification on reading habits, political or religious beliefs, and social, economic, and political issues, to RG 1.134, Section C to establish the Commission's position on these matters.
j Resolution:
Noted.
These issues are addressed in current statutes.
l l
Enclosure C 6
(
14.
Comments 110-1 and 110-2 request a provision to allow for temporary removal of an operator because of illness or injury and further recommend the removal of the requirements to report these instances in the interest of paperwork reduction.
Resolution:
Agree.
The rule has been revised and does not require notification to the NRC.
15.
Comments 31-58, 45-58, 46-58, and 62-58 suggest that those utilities that have a medical department should have the option of retaining detailed records in the medical department.
This option is contrary to the words in the regulatory guide that state the facility licensee should receive and maintain records.
Resolution:
" Facility licensee" in the rule is intended to include any part of the facility licensee organization including the medical department.
16.
Comment 131-9 suggests extension of the timing of physical examinations to 5 years to coincide with the proposed 5 year ifcense cycle.
Resolution:
The license cycle has been changed to every 6 years and the physical examination cycle will remain every 2 years.
i i
I l
b i
)
1 Enclosure C 7
0 0
t
[
8.
Regulatory Guide 1.149, " NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SIMULATION FACILITIES FOR l
USE IN OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS" 3
1.
Several comments either interpret RG 1.149 as if it is a regulatory docu-6 ment, or suggest that it become one.
a.
Comments 19-10 and 39-10 state that the ANSI 3.5 standard cannot be used as a threshold for regulatory compliance relative to the routine use of a simulator.
Comment 32-30 questions whether RG 1.149 was oriented to examinations or training.
j Resolution:
The endorsement of ANS 3.5 by RG 1.149 is intended to l
1 provide regulatory guidance, not compliance, for the specification of i
j a simulator to use in the partial conduct of operating tests.
b.
Comments 30-6 and 131-10 state that RG 1.149 should be rewritten to
]
focus on the minimum requirements for a plant-specific simulator.
{
Resolution:
A regulatory guide does not contain requirements. Rather j
ft provides guidance as to one acceptable method for meeting require-ments established by the Commission.
The regulatory guide, in its endorsement of ANS 3.5, indicates that the requirements set forth in that document are acceptable for meeting the Commission's requirements set forth in 10 CFR 55.
l I
c.
Comment 109-5 indicates that RG 1.149 should not endorse ANS 3.5.
l The NRC should develop specific standards for training simulators.
6 d.
Comment 30-9 states that RG 1.149 is too involved for approval cri-j
'b teria.
There are very few, if any, simulators which can extensively meet l
these requirements.
i e.
Comments 19-3 and 39-3 indicate thet simulation facilities should be i
regulated by the requirements that are necessary to train and evaluate an individual's abilities to safely operate a licensed facility, not by
[
f.
Comment 28-26 suggests deletion of approval of the simulation facility i
j by the NRC.
g.
Comments 13-33, 67-26, 75-1, 77-13, 81-9, and 107-15 state that it is i
not necessary to implement regulations that are more restrictive than the present industry standards in relation to simulators.
i l
Resolution:
Proposed requirements for simulation facilities are con-l tained in that section of the regulations (10 CFR 55.45) that relates to the operating test for license candidates.
RG 1.149 contains no l
requirements, but instead provides guidance that can be used by the utilities to meet the requirements.
ANS 3.5 is an industry consensus standard with which NRC is in basic agreement.
I Enclosure C 8
l
The standard applies to simulators for use in training, whereas the regulations and regulatory guidance apply to simulators for use in examinations.
The standard includes appendices that provide guid-ance for documenting simulator performance and for conducting simula-tor operability tests.
These appendices are not a part of the stan-dard itself.
Because performance documentation and operability test-ing are necessary to ensure the adequacy of a simulator for use in the conduct of examinations, the NRC has accepted these appendices to the standard as a viable approach, rather than developing its own, possibly different and more restrictive requirements.
2.
Numerous comments address the endorsement, in RG 1.149, of ANSI /ANS 3.5, 1981.
These comments properly belong in a discussion of ths regulatory guide, but several such comments were directed at 5 55.45 as well.
a.
Comments 5-9c and 5-91 recommend deletion of reference to ANS stan-dards, and "the version of the standard the guides endorse."
Resolution: Agreed.
Regulatory Position C4 has been changed to indicate that the applicability of ANSI /ANS 3.1 should be determined by referring specifically to Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8.
I b.
Comment 5-9b suggests that position C3 be deleted or modified to state "only appropriate requirements of ANS 3.5 standards must be met."
Resolution:
Agree.
Position C3 has been modified to refer to
" applicable" requirements of the standard.
c.
Comments 31-60, 45-60, 46-60, 62-60, and 104-1 state that the Com-mission has expanded the scope of ANSI /ANS 3.5.
These comments express 4
concern that the Commission is attempting to weave into the guide who may be trained or requalified using a simulator.
The subject of who may be trained on a particular plant-referenced simulator is outside the scope of the guide.
The guide should be limited to plant-referenced simulators.
Resolution:
The regulatory guide does not address the use of simula-tors for training, and there is no intent on the part of the Commis-sion to do so.
d.
Comments 75-1 and 131-10 state that the revision to RG 1.149 should be held in abeyance until ANSI /ANS 3.5 is revised.
Resolution:
The revision to RG 1.149 was developed in response to requirements set forth in Public Law 97-425.
Since the time when RG 1.149 was issued for public comment, the revised version of ANS!/
ANS 3.5 has been published, and the regulatory guide has been modified to reflect this, e.
Comments 5-9h, 13-35 and 109-6 state that consideration should be given to the latest ANS 3.5 draft revision which proposes an initial per-formance test conducted during simulator acquisition and 3n annual oper-ability test conducted each year.
Enclosure C 9
f.
Coment 5-8 refers to Appendix B of the proposed revisions of ANS 3.5.
g.
Coment 81-8 indicates that consideration should be given to and refer-ences provided for the latest draft revision to ANS 3.5.
h.
Comment 5-9f suggests simulator performance testing (1) on initial simulator construction and (2) if simulator design changes result in sig-nificant configuration or performance variations when a limited design change is made, specific performance tests on the affected systems and components should be performed.
i.
Comments 5-9g and 81-11 suggest an operability test annually in lieu of full performance tests every 4 years.
j.
Comment 36-4 indicates that Appendix B of the August 1984 draft revi-sion of ANS 3.5 provides reasonable criteria for simulator certification.
The commenter recommends that the NRC continue to follow the practice of endorsing / amplifying industry standards rather than including specific criteria in regulations.
Comments 81-11 and 87-7 also recommend that the draft (August 1984) ANS 3.5 be used.
Resolution:
RG 1.149 has been modified in response to public comments and to reflect the recent publication of ANSI /ANS 3.5-1985.
- However, certain exceptions are taken to the newly issued standard, one of which concerns the staff's belief that periodic performance testing of a simulation facility is necessary.
k.
Comments 13-36, 67-32, and 81-12 state that item C-12 (endorsement of the Appendix to ANS 3.5 as a part of the standard) should be deleted.
T 1.
Comment 5-9j recommends that wording of Regulatory Position 12 be changed to adapt other acceptable methods of demonstrating an adequate documentation approach, m.
Comments 13-34, 51-13, 51-15, 67-30, 81-10, 107-16, 109-4, and 131-12 request removal of reference to ANS 3.5 appendices, as they are intended to be used as a guide, and not a standard.
Resolution:
Disagree.
The appendices to ANS 3.5 identify how simu-lator performance may be documented, and how simulator operability may be verified.
Because such documentation and verification is necessary to ensure the adequacy of a simulator for use in the partial conduct of operating tests, the NRC has accepted the appendices to the standard as a viable approach, rather than developing its own, possibly different and more restrictive requirements.
3.
Several comments addressed the burdensome application and reporting re-quirements for simulation facility approval.
Although these are addressed in detail in the section on resolution of comments to 6 55.45, they are summarized here.
a.
Comments 28-5, 36-7 and 57-1 suggest that the NRC rethink the require-ments outlined with much less prescriptive rulemaking and closer atten-tion and cooperation with the consensus standard ANSI /ANS 3.5.
Enclosure C 10
b.
Comment 109-7 indicates that the regulatory guide imposed an unrea-sonable requirement for certification of a simulation facility.
c.
Comments 19-2, 20-2, 39-2, 95-2, 98-2, 106-2, 111-2, 112-2, 118 2, 128-2, and 131-11 indicate that the simulator reporting requirements are excessive.
d.
Comments 31-12, 45-12, 46-12, 62-12, 69-26, 78-15, and 91-14 indicate that the guidance is clear, but not reasonable.
Further, the requirements are unnecessary and impose a paperwork burden.
In addition, the require-ments are beyond the scope and capability of the computer hardware / software, e.
Comments 19-3, 20-3, 39-3, 95-3, 98-3, 111-3, 112-3, 118-3, and 128-1 agree with the endorsement of ANSI /ANS 3.5-1981; however, applications to the NRC with respect to plant-specific simulators should be a simple com-mitment to comply with the regulatory guide.
No annual reports or renewal applications should be required.
f.
Comment 109-3 indicates that NRC should specify what performance tests and reports would be required for non plant-refereaced simulators.
Resolution:
For facility licensees which utilize a simulation facil-ity consisting soley of a plant-referenced simulator as defined in S 55.4, and which meet the requirements of ANS 3.5-1985, as modified by RG 1.149, certification to the NRC by the facility licensee will be permissible.
For other simulation facilities, NRC approval of the simulation facility based on the utility's application will be required.
4.
Several comments address the clarity and the intent of Commission review 3
and approval of simulation facilities, a.
Comment 32-7 states that the guidance in RG 1.149 is not clear.
Spe-cific reference is made to the determination of quality of a " simulation facility," which excludes a plant-specific and non plant-specific simulator.
b.
Comment 13-20 requests clarification of the regulatory guide, page 6, with reference to "whatever supporting documentation and analysis of simu-lation may be deemed necessary."
c.
Comments 5-9a and 56-5 indicate that the regulatory guide is not clear in its application to simulators other than full-scope simulators.
Resolution:
It is the Commission's intent that a plant-referenced simulator that meets requirements of ANS 3.5, as modified by RG 1.149, will be acceptable for use in the partial conduct of operating tests based on a certification submitted by the facility licensee.
Detailed guidance, including approval criteria, is being developed by the Com-mission and will be made available to all facility licensees before the time when simulation facility audits will be conducted.
Such guid-ance will not impose any new requirements.
Equivalent guidance will be developed for simulation facilities other than plant-referenced simulators.
It should be noted that ANS 3.5 is an industry consensus standard udorsed, with certain exceptions, by NRC.
Endorsement of Enclosure C 11
this standard is more efficient and less burdensome than NRC develop-ment of its own independent guidance.
5.
Three coments address the benefits of a configuration management system.
a.'
Comment 46-96 makes a statement on the configuration management system / controls instituted by some utilities, b.
Comments 31-66, 45-66, 46-66, and 62-66 suggest deletion of Regula-tory Position 8 and the substitution of a configuration management system to ensure that the simulator is updated.
c.
Comments 31-70, 45-70, 46-70, and 62-70 request revision to section D,
,i whereby a licensee should be required to submit an application that com-mits to following the guidance in RG 1.149 and should develop a configura-tion management system.
Resolution:
Noted.
Although the Commission recognizes the benefits of an effective configuration management system, its responsibility is to ensure that simulation facilities are appropriate for the par-tial conduct of operating tests and not to dictate the manner in which a utility develops the capability to provide that assurance.
6.
Several comments address the need to limit and define the types, numbers, and categories of malfunctions that a simulation facility be required to demonstrate.
a.
Comments 13-37, 31-67, 32-34, 45-67, 46-67,46-96a, 62-67, 67-33, 81-13, and 131-13 recommend that a standard list of malfunctions be estab-11shed requiring routine testing to demonstrate acceptable simulator operability.
Testing all malfunctions is not reasonable.
b.
Comments46-96a and 132-2 suggest amendment of Regulatory Position 13 to reference simulated malfunctions "as they apply to safety related systems."
c.
Comment 5-9k recommends deletion of Regulatory Position 13.
d.
Comment 46-96a raises concern with Regulatory Position 13 in that it could be used improperly in the regulation of simulators.
The commentor provides recommended procedures for a testing program.
Resolution:
RG 1.149 has been rewritten to endorse, for periodic performance testing, the list of malfunctions specified in ANS 3.5, 1985.
7.
Several comments indicate that the scope of the regulatory guide should be expanded, a.
Comment 58-1 suggests revision to RG 1.149 to address the scope of simulator examinations and the impact that the subsequent criteria would have on " pass-fall" decisions.
Enclosure C 12
Resolution:
NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards,"
addresses the scope of simulator examinations.
Additional work tak-ing place in examination development also addresses this subject.
It is not appropriate for inclusion in the regulatory guide.
b.
Comment 100-4 suggests expansion of RG 1.149 to cover the details specified in the proposed changes to 10 CFR 55.45.
Resolution:
The purpose of the regulatory guide is to provide one acceptable method to satisfy the regulations adopted by the Comis-sion. An expansion of the regulatory guide would do nothing to fur-ther achieve this goal, c.
Comments 32-20 and 32-31 recommend that the NRC expand the guidance to include the operator perspective and improve the examiners' skills.
With greater examiner experience the non plant-referenced simulator versus the plant-referenced simulator controversy is of less consequence.
Resolution:
Noted.
This comment is outside the scope of the present regulation and regulatory guidance.
d.
Comment 109-2 states that the discussion portion of the regulatory guide should point out that many tasks can be evaluated on other than plant-referenced simulators.
Resolution:
Noted.
The regulatory guide clearly indicates that there are justifiable reasons for using other than plant-referenced simulators.
e.
Comments 19-11 and 39-11 suggest that the NRC look to developing cri-teria that will ensure operators can perform licensed duties in a safe manner rather than write regulations for simulators.
Resolution:
Noted.
This comment is outside the scope of the present regulation and regulatory guidance.
8.
Several comments question the applicability of RG 1.149 to " simulation facilities." Some believe that the regulatory guide should be restricted to plant-referenced simulators, whereas others criticize it because they believe that it is restricted to plant-referenced simulators.
Still other comments seek to restrict the applicability of the rules and guidance in special cases of multiunit plants.
a.
Comment 53-3 is against mandatory plant-referenced simulators.
The commenter indicates that the examiner is the key.
His ability, prepara-tion, and knowledge are the most important factors.
Resolution:
Agree.
These regulations and guidance have been writ-ten so as to not mandate plant-referenced simulators, b.
Comment 21-15 states that the regulations that deal with simulators should be deleted.
A replacement policy statement should be issued that states "no operator licenses will be issued unless the operating test is performed on a simulator which the Commission feels is plant specific "
Enclosure C 13
y, i'
~
y Resolution:
Disagree.~.The4RC,initsregulationsandguidance,has speciffeally attempted to permit the use of simulators which are other
,than plant specifip.
Additionally, the term "which the Commission-feels is plant specific" is too vague for use as a regulation or as policy.
y c.
Comments 31-60, 45-60, 46-6(,, 62-60, and 104-1 state that the regula-
,/p tory guide and ANSI /ANS 3.5 guidance should only apply to plant-
. l 7) referenced simulators.
e r
d.
Comments 31-63, 31-64, 45-53, 45-64, 46-63, 46-64, 62-63, and 62-64
,P request clarification of the terms simulation facility" and " simulator
- and suggest that " plant-reference simulator" is an appropriate substitute}.
e.
Comment 5-9' states that the reference to " approval of simulation i facility" is confusing.
Resolution:
Although it is true that ANS 3.5 is directed only at "fu 1 scope simulator (s)," it is.the intent of.-the regulatory guide, in its endorsement of ANS 3.5, that the standard be assumed to apply to other types of simulation facil,ities, as applicable.
/
t f.
Comments 19-8, 31-62, 32-32, 39-8,-45-62, 46-62, and 62-62 recommend removal of "special senior operators" and "the plant" from the footnote on page 1 of the, proposed revision of RG 1.149.
Resolution:
The term "special senior operatori" will be deleted. ',
The designation of the plant as a simulation device was envisioned ad
'/X a possible approach that a facility licensee might proposa to use in r conjunction with another simulation device or devicea in lieu of er T
plant-referenced simulator.
This approsci alght be especially suit-able for older plants without plant-referenced simulators where mant-pulations of the plant (to the extent consistent with plant conditions)
~
might be used to demonstrate familisrity with the plant for which the candidate would be licensed.
j g.
Comment 109-8 states that the demonstrition criteria specified in'the regulatory guide eliminate the use of a non-plant-referen: rut simulator for operator evaluation.
1 Resolution:
This comment misinterprets this section of the regula- -
tory guide, which applies specifically to'the usa of one simulation '
facility for more than one nuclear power plant unit.
h.
Comment 109-10requeststhatfordualplantshithmirrorimaecon-trol rooms, a simulator referenced to' tither unit should be satis actory
[
for operating examinations and, therrfure, shoyld be so specified in the j
regulatory guide.
'l l
1.
Comment 32-35 states, for a facility that wants to uss a simulat' fun f
i facility' for more than onn unit, the burden of proof of "significant dif-forence is the responsibility of tha utility.
The commenter indicates that for cases where the facility has already demonstrated that theser Enclosure C 14 l
\\
5 i, --
m
..c 0
[
differences are small and the NRC has issued a multiunit license, addi-tional justification should not be required.
c Resolution:
Not every multiunit plant has each unit of the same ven -
/
dor and/07. vintage.
Specific guidance is provided in RG 1.149 for those utilities who want to propose one simulation facility for use
' at more than one unit of a plant.
For those situations-in which a multiunit plant is composed of units from the'same vendor and vintage, it is reasonable to assume that only one plant-referenced simulator will be needed.
The guidance provided in the regulatory guide on this issue is essentially the same as that provided for the issuance of multiunit operator licenses.
9.
Miscellaneous comments to RG 1.149 are listed below.
.a.
Comment 5-9e recommends deletion of " abnormal conditions" and "ab-normal evolutions" from position C-7.
Resolution:
Th'is regulatory position has been deleted in its entirety.
b.
Comment 67-29 suggests that review of the simulator against the refer-enced plant be on an as needed basis.
Resolution:
Disagree.
The need for an annual review was recognized by its inclusion as a requirement of ANS 3.5.
The Commission has endorsed ANS 3.5, including this requirement.
c.
Comment 5-9d recommends no changes to position C5.
Resolution:
Noted.
Although position C5 has been deleted, the intent remains the same,,since each unit of a multi-unit plant has a speci-fic docket number.
d.
Comment 28-27 suggests deletion of the last sentence of Regulatory Position 8.
~
Resolution:
Regulatory Position C8 has been rewritten.
It is now Position C4.
This statement is made specifir-11y to provide a time-base against which the annual review should be,.y formed, and there-fore'has not been deleted.
The timing for the annual reviews has been changed, however, to indicate that they need not begin until after a cert 1fication on an application for approval of a simulation facility has been submitted, e.
Comments 31-70, 45-70, 46-70, and 62-70 request a modification to permit flexibility in the use of simulators after initial approval of the simulator.
f.
Comments 31-69, 45-69, 46-69, and 62-69 suggest a change to state that the sirrulation facility should be in general (vice full) compliance with the requirements of ANSI /ANS 3.5.
This change will allow flexibility i
to use the simulator until recent changes to the plant that have not been f.u talled in the simulator can be accommodated.
i Enclosure C 15
~
(
8 y
)
\\
p Resolution:
Itiis the Commission's intent to allow flexibility 1'
while establishing al uniform requirement applicable to all.
The preamble to the rule 1has been written to reflect this position.
ss i
2 g.
Comments 28 28, 51-14, 67-31, and 132-1 state the annual 25% per-formance retest would tot provide meaningful information. _ Verification of so,dification and overall performance would be more significant.
o e
t
[
J
+ Resolution: The Commiss_fon believes that certain performance tests
?
s"-
relating to abnormal.and emergency events should be performed on a regular basis..The Commission has endorsed, in RG 1.149, the list
,'c, of malfunction tests specified in ANS 3.5, to the extent applicable z'"
to the facility.
The Commission has specified that these performance tests be performed over a 4 year cycle, approximately 25% per year, to. achieve a balance between the workload of NRC's simulator reviewers, 3
the burden of undertaking such testing by the facility licensee, and (W
,'t )
- time, providing assurance that a simulation facility remains acceptable over i
U h.
Comment 86-8 questions whether research reactor operators will be 7
required to meet the 4 year performance test outlined in RG 1.149.
t i.
Comment 130-1 states that the guidance provided in the regulatory guide is not. appropriate for non power reactor facilities.
1 Resolutio'n:,,It is not the intention of these regulations or regu-latory guid65ce to change the way in which test and research reac-tors are regulated.
The appropriate clarifications has been made.
0 d
j.
Comment;131-14 states that the schedule requirements are clearly unrealistic and'the section should be deleted.
s
~
k.
Comments 31-68,s45-68, 46-68, 62-68, 100-5, and 104-4, request a i.
change from 3 to 4(years as a time requirement from which the non plant walkthrough portien of the operating test will not be administered on other than antapproved simulation facility.
(
i L
s 1.
Comment 32-33 requests an extension of time for simulation facility approval. (Tiree years is the generally accepted lead time for plant-t specific simulators and would not allow sufficient time for delivery and NRC approval.,
Resolution:
The rule has been changed to permit 4 years, rather than 3, and the applicable sections of'the: regulatory guide have-been changed accordingly.
m.
Comments 21-5 and 27-5 are restatements of question 5 in the proposed j
rule with no responses provided by the commenter.
Resolution:
Noted.
n.
Comments 31-61, 45-61, 46-61, 62-61, and+104-3; discuss-the inappro--
priate use of the term " requirements" and recommend replacement with "in conformance with."
1 9
/
Enclosure C 16 1
.)
. ~ -
.,,L
e Resolution:
- Disagree, o.
Comments 31-65, 45-65, 46-65, and 62-65 suggest that Regulatory Posi-tion 3 be deleted in its entirety.
Resolution:
Regulatory Position 3 has been rewritten, and is now Position 2.
It has been changed to indicate that all simulation facilities as defined in $$ 55.4 should meet the applicable require-ments of the standard.
p.
Comment 109-1 states that it should be recognized that the most im-portant use of simulators is to promote analytical ability, particularly under abnormal conditions, and not to encourage rote response to particular alarms.
Resolution:
Noted.
q.
Comment 109-9 states that parts of the regulatory guide reiterate portions of 10 CFR 55.45.
Resolution: These restatements have been deleted.
r.
Comment 104-5 states that it is difficult to believe that it is the Commission's aim to prevent safe, efficient operation of a nuclear power plant because a training device is inoperable or does not meet all of the NRC-imposed requirements.
This statement is made in relation to item 3 of section D.
The item should be modified as it is unduly restrictive.
Comment 46-89 also requests modification of 10 CFR 55.59(c)(4)(iv) on the i
same basis.
Resolution:
Item 3 of Section D has been deleted.
It is the Commis-sion's intent that every facility licensee have available a simulation facility that meets the Commission's regulations, and that, once avail-4 able, the simulation facility be maintained and upgraded as needed to maintain its acceptability.
The Commission recognizes that unique circumstances may occur from time-to-time on a plant-specific basis that may result in a simulation facility becoming temporarily unac-
~
ceptable for the conduct of operating tests.
It is the Commission's intent to address such situations on a case-by-case basis.
s.
Comments 7-1, 31-60, 45-60, 46-60, 62-60, and 104-2 question the validity of the findings of the staff in reference to information gathered on non plant-referenced simulators.
The commenter questioned whether training programs have been approved that do not conform to acceptable practice.
Resolution:
The Commission supports the staff's findings of the re-sblts of examinations given on non plant-referenced simulators, as discussed in the regulatory guide.
The second comment is outside the scope of the present regulations and regulatory guidance.
t.
Comment 118-4 believes that normal simulator audits should be con-ducted by the same NRC licensing examiners that conduct operator testing at the facility.
Enclosure C 17
,--..,,.-.,..n..,.v--,.,-,.,,-w.
,..-,._-..,n.,_n,
Resolution: Noted.
The review or audit of a sophisticated simulator requires expertise in several disciplines.
A study is being conduc-ted for the NRC, one purpose of which is to define the expertise needed by members of a simulation facility evaluation team.
It is likely that the discipline of licensing examiner will be recommended for inclusion.
j t>
Enclosure C 18
C.
Regulatory Guide 1.8, " PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS" 1.
Comments 4-3, 4-4, 31-47, 45-47, 46-47, 62-47, 119-2, 120-2, 131-2, and 134-2 request clarification of what positions will be covered by RG 1.8.
Comments 33-2, 43-2, and 90-4 also indicate a need for clarification.
Resolution:
The introduction to RG 1.8 has been expanded to include reference to the " Policy Statement on Training and Qualifications of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel" (50 FR 11147).
As stated in this poli-cy statement, the industry has committed to obtaining INP0 accredita-tion of training programs for nuclear power plant personnel and the NRC has endorsed this process.
Through this approach, both the indus-try and NRC have agreed that nuclear power plant personnel should have qualification requirements commensurate with the performance requirements of their jobs.
Reference is also made to the commission
" Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise in Shift" (50 FR 43621).
This policy statement describes the qualifications of a dual role SR0/STA and defines the responsibilities of the STA.
Following publication of these policy statements and receipt of public comments on RG 1.8, the NRC decided that this revision to RG 1.8 will i
l' endorse Sections 4.3.1.1, " Shift Supervisor"; 4.3.1.2, " Senior Operator"; 4.5.1.2, " Licensed Operators"; 4.4.2, " Shift Technical l
Advisor"; and 4.4.4, " Radiation Protection" (including referenced sections) of ANSI /ANS 3.1-1981 and that ANSI /ANS N 18.1-1971 will be
[
endorsed for all other positions.
2.
Comments 31-47, 45-47, 46-47, 62-47, 67-20, 114-11, 119-1, 131-2, and 134-2 state that it appears that license applicants who have completed a l
training program accredited by INPO do not need to meet the requirements of RG 1.8.
This type of exemption of program requirements should be included in 10 CFR 55.
Resolution:
The NRC will continue to approve operator training programs, as required by 10 CFR Parts 50 and 55.
l l
3.
Comment 13-22 states that RG 1.8, which endorses ANSI /ANS 3.1.-1981, exceeds the recommendations of NUREG-0737 and ANSI N18.1-1971.
The more restrictive regulations make the task of achieving excellence in operator performance more difficult.
i Resolution:
RG 1.8 does not exceed the recommendations stated in NUREG-0737, but incorproates them.
The purpose of RG 1.8 is not to produce "more restrictive regulations" but to incorporate existing guidance for operator qualifications in one place.
4.
Comments 31-45, 45-45, 46-45, 62-45, 95-1, 98-1, 106-1, 111-1, 112-1, l
114-9, 118-1, 128-1, and 134-1 recommend that the NRC delay issuing RG 1.8 l
until the latest version of ANSI /ANS 3.1 is published.
It makes little sense to endorse a 1981 standard which will soon be superseded.
In the in-terim, presently published guidance regarding training and qualifications should be used.
Enclosure C 19
Resolution:
A new version of ANSI /ANS 3.1 has not yet been published.
The experience requirements are not significantly different in the proposed draft standard from those in the 1981 standard. The training requirements of the draft standard clearly states that a systematic approach to training shall be instituted, which is the current ~indus-
.try commitment.
Thus, RG 1.8 is consistent with the proposed version of ANSI /ANS 3.1.
5.
Comment 94-1 states that the NRC should approve INP0's training program rather than wait 2 or more years.
Resolution:
The Commissioners directed the staff to withhold a rule on training for at least 2 years; in the interim, the NRC has endorsed INPO's accreditation program.
At the end of 2 years, the staff will provide the Commissioners with an overall evaluation of the effects of accreditation on training in the industry.
- 6.
- Comments 101-1 and 130-1 take exception to the application of RG 1.8 to nonpower reactor personnel. -A request for a disclaimer exempting nonpower reactor personnel is suggested.
Resolution:
RG 1.8 endorses ANSI /ANS 3.1-1981, which applies only to nuclear power plants.
Test, training, research, and mobile reac-tors are excluded.
RG 1.8 has been revised to include a statement specifically excluding nonpower reactors.
7.
Comment 133-1 suggests that the INPO accreditation process'be addressed as an acceptable program for determining training needs for personnel.
The regulatory guide should focus on selection and qualification and leave specific job-related training requirements to be identified by the systematic approach to training.
Resolution:
The INPO accreditation process has been endorsed by NRC in the policy statement (50 FR 11147) as an acceptable program for training operators for a 2 year evaluation period.
8.
Comments 31-46, 45-46, 46-46, 62-46, 113-1, 114-10, 116-1, 122-1, and 129-1 discuss the requirements in ANSI /ANS 3.1rfor shift supervisors to obtain 60 semester hours of college level education and for senior opera-tors to obtain 30 semester hours of college level education.
RG 1.8 must include an exception to the endorsement of ANSI /ANS 3.1, which deletes the semester hours requirements.
Resolution:
Agree, an exception to these requirements has been added to the regulatory guide.
9.
Comment 127-1 requests that an acceptable method for determining and docu-menting compliance for contractor personnel be included in this regulatory guide.
Resolution:
Guidance regarding contractor personnel is no longer in the regulatory guide.
Enclosure C 20 4
10.
Comment 97-1 points out a problem in item C-1 of the regulatory guide in that it identifies other documents to be included as part of ANSI /ANS Standard 3.1-1981, when, in fact, the standard only m'entions ANS standards and does not include them as a part of its guidance.
Resolution:
The comment is noted and C-1 has been deleted.
11.
Comments 13-23, 31-48, 45-48, 46-48, 62-48, 107-1, 114-12, 127-2, and 134-3 suggest that relevant guidance be spelled out in item C-4 of the regulatory guide rather than referencing three or four separate NUREGs.
The present approach allows for unique interpretation of positions which evolved over several years.
Resolution:
Agree, item C-4 has been rewritten to include relevant guidance (C.1.b.).
12.
Comments 28-30, 31-50, 45-50, 46-50, 62-50, 80-11, 90-3, 107-2, 114-14, 119-3, 133-3, 134-5, and 135-1 indicate that the present definition of 4 years of responsible power plant experience in item C-6 is confusing and overly restrictive.
It is recommended that the sentence "A maximum of two years of responsible power plant experience may be fulfilled by aca-demic or related technical training on a one-for-one basis" be changed to read "A maximum of two years of responsible power plant experience may be l
fulfilled by academic or related technical training, or nuclear power plant auxiliary operator experience on a one-for-one basis." Comments 6-3, 10-1, i
13-25, 15-1, 17-1, 51-10, 69-17, and 99-1 express concern with the substi-tution of a college engineering degree for operator experience in qualify-ing for an SR0 license.
There also is concern that this policy will lead to unsafe operating conditions.
Comment 61-3 states that NUREG-0737 re-quires 1 year of experience and should be retained instead of the proposed experience levels presented in R.G. 1.8.
Comment 114-1 requests the addi-d tion of the words "as a power plant technical or training staff member involved in the support of day-to-day facility operations" to item C-6, line b.
Comment 114-2 states that it would be inappropriate for the NRC to not allow utility management the prerogative to license personnel with-out a degree as " instant" SR0s._
Resolution: The words in C-6 (now C.1.e.) are the same as those used in the March 28, 1980 letter to all licensees from Harold R.
Denton concerning " Qualifications of Reactor Operators," as published in NUREG-0737.
Waivers to the guidance may be obtained from the NRC Operator Licensing Branch.
It is not the purpose of RG 1.8 to change existing guidance, but only to incorporate all existing guidance on operator qualifications.
13.
Comment 127-3 recommends C-6 be rewritten to reference NUREG-1021 as the definitive listing of acceptable experience.
Resolution:
NUREGs are not referenced in the regulatory guide because NUREGs may be revised without the benefit of public comment.
14.
Comment 13-26 states that much success has been achieved with previous fossil plant or Navy nuclear control room operators as instant SR0s.
Why then does the NUREG limit " instant" senior reactor operators to Enclosure C 21
9 engineers with degrees? Comment 76-12 requests appropriate experience allowance for U.S. Navy Machinist Mates who were watch-standees outside the control room.
Resolution:
RG 1.8 is'not changing existing guidance on eligibility requirements for control room operators.
15.
Comment 12-1 requests a.special restricted SR0 license requiring a pre-determined number of hours in the control room as an RO before the SR0 license becomes valid.
Resolution:
The NRC does not give probationary licenses.
16.
Comment 94-3 states that the Commission is wasting the taxpayers' money in licensing engineers who, in fact, have no intention of operating the plant.
Resolution:
The need for an R0 or SRO license for an employee is determined by the facility.
The management of each facility is given the prerogative to staff the facility in a way deemed appropriate to the facility, as long as minimum NRC staffing requirements are met.
17.
Comment 107-4 is seeking guidelines for satisfying the requirement for 6 months of operating experience at the nuclear power plant for which the applicant seeks a license and requests that time in training counts toward the 6 months.
Resolution:
It is the intent of this requirement that the applicant has been at that nuclear site for 6 months, therefore, training time counts.
18.
Comments 67-21 and 107-5 request provisions for a special SRO to upgrade 1
to a full SRO license after 1 year of experience as a simulator instructor or after completion of an INPO-accredited training program.
Resolution:
In recognition of the industry commitment to INPO accredi-tation of training programs, which includes review of instructor quali-fications and in keeping with the intent of the " Policy Statement on Training and Qualifications of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel" (50 FR 11147), the NRC is deferring the implementation of special senior licenses.
Industry efforts in implementing instructor qualifi-cation programs will be monitored as directed by the policy statement.
4 19.
Comments 13-27, 28-31, 31-51, 45-51, 46-51, 51-11, 62-51, 67-22, 77-10, 107-6, 114-3, 114-15, 119-4, 120-3, 126-1, 127-4, 131-4, 133-4, and 134-6 refer to item C-7 and the statement that instructors who teach systems, integrated responses, and the like, are required to complete a senior reactor operator or special senior reactor operator certification examination.
i Enclosure C 22
~~
+
f Resolution:
In recognition of industry commitment to INP0 accredita-tion of training programs, which includes instructor training, quali-fication and evaluation,'and in keeping with the intent of the " Policy Statement on Training and Qualifications of Nuclear Power Plant Per-sonnel" (50 FR 11147), the NRC is deferring the -implementation of special seni U licenses for instructors and fuel handlers.
Industry efforts in implementing instructor qualification programs will be i
monitored as directed by the policy statement.
Therefore, C-7 has been deleted.
20.
Several comments (as listed in a through d below) concerned the position of shift technical advisor (STA).
(a) Comments 13-24, 31-49, 31-52, 43-2, 45-49, 45-52, 46-49, 46-52, 51-9, 62-49, 62-52, 69-16, 77-10, 81-14, 90-4, 114-13, 123-2, 133-2, 134-4, and 134-7 state that items C-5 and C-8 should be rewritten to reflect the Commission's forthcoming policy statement on engineering expertise on shift for all matters relating to the requirements for STAS.
Comments 76-13, 107-7, 113-2, 116-2, 122-2, and 129-2 request a definition of " acceptable alternative" with respect to STA education requirements.
Resolution:
Concerning the STA, C-5 and C-8 have been rewritten (c.1.j.) to reflect the " Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift (50 FR 43621)
(b) Comment 131-3 points out inconsistency in wording between items C-6 and C-8, " engineering or equivalent" and recommends the words be changed to " engineering or acceptable alternative." Comment 61-4 recommends that the regulatory requirement be consistent with the "NRC Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift." Comment 76-13 indicates that ANSI /
ANS 3.1 educational requirements for STAS should be identified as an i
acceptable alternative to a bachelors degree in R.P. C-8.
i Resolution:
C-8 has been rewritten (C.1.j.) in accordance with the final Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift (50 F_R 43621).
~
(c) Comments 31-52, 45-52, 46-52, 62-52, 69-18, 107-8, 113-3, 114-16, i
120-4, 127-5, and 134-7 refer to C-8 and request clarification of the meaning of " performing the STA functions." Several commenters disagree with the 20-day requirement and suggest alternative time requirements.
One commenter also requests that the requalification training needed for an STA to resume duties be specified.
Comment 119-5 recommended that the STA requirements be the same as for licensed operators.
Resolution:
Actively performing STA functions means performing at l
least three shifts per quarter as the STA.
If an STA has not actively performed, then the STA should receive training sufficient to ensure l
that the STA is cognizant of facility and procedure changes that occurred during the absence.
The RG 1.8 has been revised accord-i ingly and the sentence concerning requalification training has been deleted.
(d) Comment 8-6 recommends that item C-8 be revised to require persons serving as an STA to pass an NRC-administered examination equivalent to Enclosure C 23
j l
J that for senior reactor operators.
This will enhance the: credibility.of this position.
Resolution:
The Commission may consider such an examination.in the future.
No new rulemaking will be undertaken until after the accreditation program relative'to the STA has been fully evaluated.
I 21.
Comment 131-6 recommends that the third line of item C-9 be changed to read "... include training in the use of installed plant systems for the control and/or mitigation of an accident in which the core is severely _ damaged."
Resolution:
C-9 has been reworded (c.1.f.).
22.
Comments 13-28, 31-53, 45-53, 46-53, 62-53, 114-17, and 123-3, 134-8 suggest ites C-10 should be applied to-hot license applicants only.
Comment 123-3 requests a definition of "an extra person on shift" as 3
applied in C-10.
Comments 126-2 and 6-4 suggest deletion of all refer-i ences to length of time in C-10 because they believe there is no justi-
~
fication to require 3 months of on-shift training.
Resolution:
Existing guidance on operator qualifications in NUREG-0737 i ;
applies (C.1.g.).
23.
Comments 6-4, 31-54, 45-54, 46-54, 62-54, 67-23, 76-14, 101-1, 107-9,-
113-4, 114-4, 114-18, 116-3, 119-6, 122-1, 122-3, 123-4, 125-1, 126-3, 129-3, 134-2, and 135-2, concern reactivity manipulations.
Several com-menters requested the term "significant" in relation to reactivity change manipulation be defined in C-11.
Further, several of the commenters in-dicated that these manipulations should be acceptable, if performed on a plant-referenced simulator.
1 Resolution:
Examples of significant control manipulations include:
~
startups, shutdowns,..large load changes and changes in rod programming are some examples and could be accomplished by manually using systems such as rod control, chemical shim control, or recirculation flow.
Reactivity control manipulations are intended to be performed at the plant for the purpose of gaining actual nperating experience (c.1.h.).
(.
These issues are also addressed in revisions to 10 CFR 55.33(a)(5).
24.
Comments 31-55, 45-55, 46-55, 62-55, 114-19, and 134-10 request that item C-12 clearly states-that the 6-month period of practical work assignments can be conducted concurrently with other duties or training.
Comment 120-5 states the 6-month program of minimum work assignments, in addition to the approved cold license program, does not contribute meaningfully and i
should not be imposed.
Resolution:
Participation in 6 months of practical work assignments is current guidance for cold license applicants.
These assignments are intended to be an experience requirement and, therefore, should I
not be part of training.
NRC's position is that cold license appli-cants shall have a 6-month experience requirement in addition to an NRC-approved training program.
This requirement provides-the, applicant with hands-on plant experience.
Enclosure C 24 1
o 25.
Comments 13-29, 100-2, 114-5, and 123-5 suggest removal of item C-13 in its entirety.
Resolution:
C-13 has been deleted.
26.
Comments 13-30, 107-10, 77-11, 81-15, 69-19 and 97-2 recommend that C-14 only apply to " individuals performing fuel handling activities," and comments 31-56, 45-56, 46-56, 62-56, 114-20, and 134-11 recommend that C-14 be deleted.
Resolution:
C-14 has been deleted.
27.
Comment 11-1 agrees with the proposal in item C-15.
Resolution:
The comment has been noted.
28.
Actively Performing:
Numerous comments (as listed in a through f below) were made on the topic of actively performing the functions of a reactor operator or senior reactor operator.
(a) Comments 107-3 and 123-1 seek a definition of the terminology
" actively performing."
Resolution:
A definition of actively performing the functions of a reactor operator or senior reactor operator has been added to 10 CFR 55.4.
(b) Comments 4-2, 8-2, 28-32, 31-57, 45-57, 46-57, 62-57, 69-21, 51-12, 67-24, 76-15, 77-12, 80-4, 80-5, 86-6, 90-5, 91-5, 94-4, 97-3, 107-11, 113-5, 114-6, 107-14, 114-8, 114-21, 116-4, 123-6, 119-7, 120-6, 121-1, 7'
122-4, 127-6, 129-4, 131-7, 131-8, 133-5, and 134-12 object to the require-l ment of C-15 to have licensees " actively performing" as an operator.
The requirements would essentially remove licenses from anyone who is not in L
the operations organization.
Several alternative lengths of time of per-formance are suggested.
Comments 76-15 and 120-6 request that the 8-hour I
per month of license duty performance to maintain active status be allowed to be performed on a plant-referenced simulation facility.
Co^mments 67-23, 80-5, 81-16, 90-5, 94-5, 114-7, 123-6, 131-8, 133-5, and 134-12 state that the current options to allow the facility licensee to certify that satisfactory knowledge and understanding exist before to resuming duties is sufficient and that the Commission should not be involved in the determination.
Resolution:
10 CFR 955.4 has been modified as follows:
" Actively performing the functions of an operator or senior operator means that an individual takes responsibility for and carries out a position on l
the shift crew which requires the subject license as defined in the facility's technical specifications." S55.53(e) indicates that for a license to remain active, the licensee must actively perform the functions of an operator or senior operator for a minimum of seven 8-hour shifts or five twelve-hour shifts per quarter.
C-15 has been deleted.
Enclosure C 25
(c) Comment 69-20 suggests that C-15 should clearly state that " actively performing functions of an operator" should apply both to " conditions of licenses" and " renewal of licenses." Comment 13-31 suggests that C-15 should only apply to " conditions for licenses" and not to " renewal of licenses."
Resolution:
C-15 has been deleted.
The requirement is in 10 CFR 55.
(d) Comment 97-4 states that the requirement for all departments to pro-vide input to operator retraining is overly restrictive and burdensome.
Familiarization with new procedures, plant modifications, and other current events specified by the training department should be adequate for operator requalification.
Resolution:
C-15 has been deleted.
(e) Comment 107-12 requests the following phrase be added to the end of C-15:
"or functioned in a position that normally requires the licensed individual to maintain current knowledge of actual plant conditions and participate in overall plant operations on a periodic basis to a depth consistent with that required of licensed operators or senior operators on-shift."
Resolution:
C-15 has been deleted.
(f) Comment 127-7 recommends that the " update" training referred to in C-15 should be clearly identified as performance-based training.
Resolution:
C-15 has been deleted.
G 29.
Comment 120-1 states that comments were generated under the assumption that positions indicating an action "should be accomplished" were specifi-cations of requirements as opposed to a discretionary, justified action.
Resolution:
This assumption is correct.
l l
Enclosure C 26
z a
p
,2 a
e f
9 i
ENCLOSURE D REGULATORY GUIDE 1.134 MEDICAL EVALUATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITY PERSONNEL REQUIRING OPERATOR-LICENSES i
4 O
eqe A
6 i
- ___m,
- =
R2visien 2 Division 1
~
10/28/86
Contact:
S. Shankman (301)492-9806 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.134 Task OL 401-5 MEDICAL EVALUATION OF LICENSED PERSONNEL FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS A.
INTRODUCTION Sections 55.31, "How to Apply," and 55.57, " Renewal of Licenses," of 10 CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," require that each initial or renewal application for an operator or senior operator license contain a medical exami-nation certification following the form prescribed in Subpart C, " Medical Requirements." Sections 55.33, " Disposition of Initial Application," and 55.57 state that the initial or renewal applications for these licenses will be approved if, among other things, the applicant has no medical or general health condition that might cause operational errors endangering public health and safety.
Paragraph (i) of.$ 55.53, " Conditions of Licenses," requires that an l
examination be conducted every 2 years.
l Section 55.25, " Incapacitation Because of Disability or Illness," deals j
with an operator or senior operator who becomes incapacitated because of a mental or physical condition that might cause impaired judgment or motor l
coordination.
l Section 55.27, " Documentation," requires that the facility licensee docu-i ment and maintain the medical qualifications data, current test results, and each operator's medical history and provide these to the NRC upon its request.
I This guide describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff for providing the information needed by the staff for its evaluation of the medical qualifications of applicants for initial or renewal operator or senior operator licenses for nuclear power plants and for providing notification to the NRC of the disability.
i l
l
0 Any information collection activities mentioned in this regulatory guide are contained as requirements in 10 CFR Part 55, which provides the regulatory basis for this guide.
The information collection requirements of Part 55 have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget, number 3150-0018 as appro-priate under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
B.
DISCUSSION Section 55.23, " Certification," of Subpart C, " Medical Requirements," of 10 CFR Part 55 requires that a physician examine the applicant in accordance with NRC's regulatory guidance and determine that the examinee's medical
{
condition and general health meet the requirements for grant.ing or renewing an operator license.
The physician must send a full medical examination report to the facility licensee, which will then transmit a completed Form 396 to the NRC. The intent of these requirements is to have the facility licensee certify the health of its operators.
However, the facility licensee is expected to maintain those records that may be reviewed by the NRC.
Therefore, 5 55.27 requires the facility licensee to document and maintain the full medical exam-ination report, including the results of medical qualifications data, test results, and each operator's medical history.
In addition, 5 55.27 requires the facility licensee to retain the most recent medical information as a result j
of the biennial physical examination and provide that information to the NRC on request.
The certification form would be sent by the facility licensee to the NRC.
There are two instances in which medical information must be sent to the NRC.
One is when a conditional license based on medical evidence is requested under the provisions of paragraph 55.33(b).
The second instance is when a licensed individual has become mentally or physically unable to perform job duties.
In this case, the facility licensee must notify the NRC within 30 days after learning that the diagnosis has been made.
The facility licensee must forward to the NRC Form 396 and medical records describing the disability.
This related information is required by S 55.27 to be documented and maintained by the facility.
An American National Standard developed by the American Nuclear Society, ANSI /ANS-3.4-1983, " Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring 2
Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,"1 prescribes minimum requirements necessary to determine that the medical condition and general health of nuclear i
reactor operators will not cause operational errors.
The criteria presented in this standard provide an examining physician a basis for determining whether a potentially disqualifying abnormal health condition exists.
Establishing mini-num health requirements should aid in more uniform medical evaluations.
- However, it is necessary to recognize that, although it is the physician's responsibility to identify and evaluate any potentially disqualifying medical conditions, NRC 1
makes the final determination of the applicant's medical fitness.
Nothing in ANSI /ANS-3.4-1983 or this guide should be construed to mean that such matters as an individual's reading habits, political or religious beliefs, or attitudes on social, economic, or political issues should be investigated or judged.
C.
REGULATORY POSITION l
The requirements contained in ANSI /ANS-3.4-1983, " Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,"1 provide a method acceptable to the NRC staff for determining the medical qualifications of applicants for initial or renewal operator or senior operator licenses.
D.
IMPLEMENTATION The purpose of this section is to provide information to applicants and j
licensens about the staff's plans for using this regulatory guide.
Except in those cases in which the licensee proposes an acceptable alter-native method for complying with specified portions of the Commission's regula-tions, the methods described in the guide will be used in evaluating the part of an application for initial or renewal operator or senior operator licenses l
on NRC Form 396, " Certificate of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee."
2 Copies may be obtained from the American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, Illinois 60525.
l 3
VALUE/ IMPACT ANALYSIS A separate value/ impact analysis has not been prepared for this regulatory guide. A value/ impact analysis was included in the regulatory analysis for the amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 put,lished on [date of FR notice] a copy of which was placed in the Public Document Room at that time. This analysis is also appropriate to Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.134.
e i
4
-.-a a
a.-..
s
+
ENCLOSURE E REGULATORY GUIDE 1.149 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SIMULATION FACILITIES FOR USE IN OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATIONS s
4 e
9 s
t e
aq, l
l l
l l
y
=
I 7
Revision-1 11/5/86
~
Division 1
Contact:
J. Wachtel (301)492-8508 REGULATORY GUIDE 1.149 (Task OL 402-5)
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SIMULATION FACILITIES FOR USE IN OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATIONS A.
INTRODUCTION Paragraph 55.45(a) of 10 CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," requires that an applicant for an operator or senior operator ifcense demonstrate both an understanding of and the ability to perform certain essential job tasks.
Para-graph 55.45(b) specifies that these operating tests will be administered, in part, either in a simulation facility consisting solely of a plant-referenced i
simulator that has been certified to the Commission by the facility licensee or in a simulation facility approved by the Commission after application has been made by the facility licensee.1 1
j This regulatory guide describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with those portions of the Commission's regulations regarding (1)
I certification of a simulation facility consisting solely of a plant-referenced simulator and (2) application for prior approval of a simulation facility.
Any information collection activities mentioned in this regulatory guide are contained as requirements in those sections of 10 CFR Part 55 that provide
- A simulation facility is defined in 5 55.4 as one or more of the following com ponents, alone or in combination, used for the partial conduct of operat-ing tests for operators, senior operators, and candidates:
(i) the plant, (ii) a plant-referenced simulator, (iii) another simulation device.
l l
l 1
l
the regulatory basis for this guide.
These information collection activities have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under approval Nos. 3150-0018 and 3150-0138.
B.
DISCUSSION Although ensuring that individuals who receive operator or senior operator licenses possess the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to operate the facility in a safe manner is the responsibility of facility licensees, the Nuclear Regul'atory Commission must perform an independent audit of this process through its operator licensing examinations.
Section 55.45, " Operating Tests,"
of 10 CFR Part 55 requires the candidate for a license to demonstrate an under-standing of and the ability to perform the actions necessary during normal, abnormal, and emergency situations; the operation.of systems that affect heat removal or reactivity changes; and behaviors that demonstrate the individual's ability to function within the control room team in such a way that the facil-ity licensee's procedures are adhered to and that the limitations in its license and amendments are not violated.
The use of a plant referenced simulator for testing enables the examiner to evaluate a candidate's performance in an environment closely correlated with conditions in the specific plant for which that candidate has applied for a 4
license. With major facility differences minimized between the testing and operating environments, examiners have been able to make pass-fail judgments with confidence.
Although the increased use of plant-referenced simulators has provided to examiners the capability for better discrimination between success and failure in a candidate than could be achieved with non plant-referenced simulators, the staff recognizes the existence of several factors that could suggest the use of alternative. systems or devices for conducting the non-walkthrough portions of operating tests. These factors include the cost and lead time associated with procurement or upgrading of a plant-referenced simulator. Moreover, rapidly changing technology in the simulation industry is resulting in previously unavailable options that could lead a facility licensee to seek' alternative ways to meet the requirements of 5 55.45. ANSI /ANS-3.5-1985, " Nuclear Power 2
~
o e
Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training": (the standard,), in conjunction with this regulatory guide, provides guidance in these areas.
C.
REGULATORY POSITION Requirements are set forth in ANSI /ANS-3.5-1985 for specifying minimum performance and configuration criteria for a simulator, for comparing a simu-lator to its reference plant, and for upgrading simulators to reflect changes to reference plant response or control room configuration. These requirements provide a metliod acceptable to the NRC staff for a facility licensee (1) to
-certify a simulation facility consisting solely of a plant-referenced simulator or (2) to obtain approval of a simulation facility for use in portions of reac-tor operator and senior operator license examinations subject to the following:
1.
The references to operator training in Section 1, " Scope," of the standard should be taken to apply to operating tests for operators, senior operators, and candidates.
2.
Simulation facilities as defined in S 55.4 of 10 CFR 55, to the extent that the facility licensee applies for approval under the requirements of paragraph 55.45(b), should meet the applicable requirements of the standard.
3.
The standard identifies in Section 1.1, " Background," other documents to be included as part of..the standard. The applicability of one of these documents, ANSI /ANS-3.1,2 should be determined by referring to Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8.
4.
Section 5.2, " Simulator Update Design Data," requires that reference plant modifications be reviewed annually against the simulator and that the simulator update design data be revised as appropriate. This should be taken 2 Copies may be obtained from the American Nuclear Society, 555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, IL 60525.
3.
7 g - _
N-i
_.o
^
~
to mean that the first such annual review and update should,take place within one year following the facility licensee's certification as specified in para-graph 55.45(b)(5)(1) or within 18 months following the submittal of the appli-cation for approval as specified in paragraph 55.45(b)(4)(1).
5.
Section 5.4, " Simulator Testing," requires the conduct of specific tests to establish simulator performance and verify its operability.
In addi-tion to these procedures, applicable malfunctions, identified in Section 3.1.2,
" Plant Malfunctions," should be periodically tested to ensure the continued acceptability' of the simulation facility. These malfunctions, if applicable to the facility, should be tested in their entirety not less than every four years, approximately 25% per year. When conducted in addition to the tests required by Section 5.4 and when subjected to the performance criteria for transient operations specified in Section 4.2, " Transient Operation," these malfunction tests provide an acceptable means of demonstrating the performance and opera-
'bility of the simulation facility.
6.
Appendix A to the standard, " Guide for Documenting Simulator Perform-ance," and Appendix B to the standard, " Simulator Operability Tests," should be considered integral parts of.the standard.
D.
IMPLEMENTATION The purpose of this section is to provide information to facility licensees about the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide.
In accordance with the requirements in 5 55.45 of 10 CFR Part 55, the simu-lation facility portion of the operating test will not be administered on other than an approved or a certified simulation facility after:
1.
The facility licensee has submitted a certification in accordance with 5 55.45(b)(5)(1), or 2.
The staff has approved an application submitted by the facility licensee in accordance with 5 55.45(b)(4), or 3.
(Insert date four years after the effective date of the rule),
whichever occurs sooner.
4 i
~
Until that time, the NRC will continue to give examinati,ons for a facility licensee's reference plant in accordance with Generic Letter 82-18, " Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Requalification Examinations," October 12, 1982.
Licensees and applicants may propose means other than t. hose specified in Section C of this guide for meeting applicable regulations. Except in those cases in which a facility licensee submits a certification for its simulation facility or proposes an acceptable alternative method for complying with spect-fied portions of the Commission's regulations, the NRC will use the method described in this guide in the evaluation of the application for approval sub-mitted by the facility licensee for its simulation facility. The guidance provided in Section C has been approved for use by the staff in the evaluation of all submittals as an acceptable means of complying with the Commission's regulations specified in Section A.
If a facility licensee wishes to utilize a simulation facility at more than one nuclear power plant, it must demonstrate to the NRC in its certifica-tion or in its application that the differences between the plants are not so significant that they have an impact on the ability of the simulation facility to meet the requirements and guidance of ANSI /ANS-3.5-1985 as qualified in this regulatory guide for each of the plants. This demonstration should include an analysis and summary of the differences between each plant and the simulation facility, including:
1.
Facility design and systems relevant to control room personnel; l
2.
Technical specifications; 3.
Procedures, primarily abnormal and emergency operating procedures; I
4.
Control room design and instrument / control location; and 5.
Operational characteristics.
i 5
VALUE/ IMPACT ANALYSIS A separate value/ impact analysis has not been prepared for this regulatory guide. A value/ impact analysis was included in the regulatory analysis for the amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 published on [date of FR Notice], a copy of which was placed in the Public Document Room at that time. This analysis is also appropriate to Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.149.
6
t' ENCLOSURE F REGULATORY GUIDE 1.8 i
QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING OF PERSONNEL FOR HUCLEAR POWER PLANTS J
4 1
4
~
1 j
O c
t i
R 5isien 2 11/5/86 -
~
REGULATORY GUIDE 1.8
)
(Task OL 403-5)
QUALIFICATION AND TRAINING OF PERSONNEL FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 1
A.
INTRODUCTION Paragraph 50.34(b)(6)(i) of 10 CFR Part 50, " Domestic Licensing of Produc-tion and Utilization Facilities," requires that an application for a license to i
operate a nuclear power plant include information concerning organizational structure, personnel qualifications, and related matters.
Subpart 0, "Applica-tions," of 10 CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," requires that operator license applications include information concerning an individual's education and
(
experience and related matters.
This regulatory guide describes a method acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with those portions of the Commis-sion's regulations with regard to the training and qualifications of nuclear I
j power plant personnel.
Personnel of test, training, research, and mobile reac-tors are not covered by this regulatory guide.
Any information collection activities mentioned in this regulatory guide l
are contained as requirements in 10 CFR Parts 50 and 55, which provide the regulatory basis for this guide. The information collection requirements in 10 CFR Part 50 have been approved under OMB No. 3150-011, those in 10 CFR Part 55, under OMB No. 3150-0018.
B.
DISCUSSION Subcommittee ANS-3, Reactor Operations, American Nuclear Society Standards Committee, developt.I a standard containing criteria for the qualification and training of nuclet.? power plant personnel. This standard was approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Committee N18, Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, and designated ANSI N18.1-1971, " Selection and Train,ing of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel." Regulatory Guide 1.8, " Personnel Selection w $r
4--,.w--w i--ye
-r,asw---
-r----*-ir
..9
i i
~.
and Training," endorsing ANSI N18.1-1971, was issued in March 1971, and Revi-sion 1 was issued in September 1975.
A revision of ANSI N18.1-1971 was sub-sequently approved by the ANSI 8oard of Standards Review and designated ANSI /
ANS-3.1-1978, " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel."
A first proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8 endorsing ANSI /ANS-3.1-1978 was issued for putilic comment in February 1979.
As a result of experience gained from the accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2), addi-tional public comments in the area of personnel qualifications were requested on proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8 in May 1979.
All of the com-l ments from both requests were forwarded to the ANS-3 Subcommittee for its use during the development of a rev.ision to ANSI /ANS-3.1-1978.
Subsequently, Draft Standard ANS 3.1, dated December 6, 1979, incorporating the upgraded require-ments was issued.
In September 1980, public comments were requested on a second proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8 that endorsed Draft Standard ANS 3.1.
The public comments re.ceived were held in abeyance pending Commission action on proposed rules on operator qualifications and licensing in SECY 81-84,
" Qualification of Reactor Operators,"1 February 2,1981, and SECY 81-84A,
" Discussion of Revisions to Reactor Operator Qualifications,"1 June 15, 1981.
The Commission did not approve either of these proposals and directed the staff to continue to study the issue.
During 1981, Draft Standard ANS 3.1 was updated to factor in additional J
lessons learned from the TMI-2 accident and changing regulatory requirements.
The standard was approved by the American Nuclear Society's Nuclear Power Plant Standards Committee (NUPPSCO) and the ANSI Board of Standards Review and was 4
reissued as ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981, " Selection, Qualification and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel."2 A third proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.8 was developed to endorse ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981 with certain additions and excep-tions and was issued for public comment in January 1985.
As a result of the public comment's and Commission actions concerning training and qualifications, this Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.8 now endorses Sections 4.3.1.1, " Shift 1 Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.
scopies may be.obtained from the American Nuclear Society,.555. North i
Kensington Avenue, LaGrange Park, IL 60525.
i 2
a Supervisor," 411.2, " Senior Operator," 4.5.1'.2, " Licensed Operators," 4.4.8,
~"
" Shift Technical Advisor," and 4.4.4, " Radiation Protection," of ANSI /ANS-3.1-1S81.
Endorsement for all other positions wi11' remain with ANSI !!18.1-1971,
" Selection and Training of huclear Power Plant Personnel." The bases for the additions and exceptions to ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981 are contained in NUREG-0737,
" Clarification of TMI A: tion Plan Requirements,"E which includes the March 28, 1980 letter to all power reactor applicants and licensees regarding qualifica-tion of reactor operators, and NUREG-0094, " Guide for the Licensing of Facility Operators, Including Senior Operators," and the Commission " Policy Statement on Engineering' Expertise on Shift" (50 FR 43621). The feguistory position' rented to the Radiation Protection Manager is revised from what was included ir. Revi-sion 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.8 (1975). The industry has P.dopted thh requisite qualifications in ANSI /ANS 3.1-1981, and the current change endorses thn;t.
l industry position.
On March 20, 1985, the Commisaion issued a " Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of huclear Fower Plant Personnel" (50 FP. 11147) that racog- [
nizes industry commitment to accredit training programs.
In the policy state-ment, the NRC endorsed the training accreditation program managed by the, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) because it encompasses the ela-l ments of performance-based training and will provide the ban s to ensure that,
i personnel have qualifications commensurate with the perforeence requiremints of their jobs.
The Commission has decided to withhold action jn prceulgating new training and qualifications regulations daring an evaluation period. During that period, NRC will continue to evaluate the results of the accreditation program to determine if the voluntary industry efforts ensure qualificaticas that meet or exceed the minimum standards included in this guide.
The Commission " Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift" issued on October 28, 1985, (50 FR 43621) provides two options for meeting nuclear power plant staffing requirements (paragraph 50.54(m)(2)(i) of 10 CFR Part 50) i r
and the requirement to have a shift technical advisor (STA) avdilable to the shift (NUREG-0737, I.A.1.1).
One: option in the Policy Statement, which is preferred by the Commission, allows combining the functions of the STA with one of the required Senior Operators as long as specific training and education 8CopiesmaybeobtainedfromtheGovernmentPrintingOffice,PostOhficeSox 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082.
3
1 t
requirements are met. The other option allows for continuation of an approved independent STA program.
Regulatory Position C.2.a reflects the guidance provided in this Policy Statement.
r C.
REGULATORY POSITION
-4 1.
Positions in ANSI /ANS 3.1-1981 That Are Endorsed by This Regulatory Guide z
For the positions listed in ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981, " Selection, Qualification and Training'of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," as Shift Supervisor, Senior Operator, Licensed Operator, and Shift Technical Advisor, the require-ments contained in the standard provide an approach acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the qualifications and training requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 55 subject to the guidance regarding the STA Function provided in the Commission's " Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift" and the clarifications, additions, and exceptions in paragraphs a through k below.
For radiation protection supervisory personnel, Section 4.4.4 of the standard co,n-tains an approach acceptable for the position of Radiation Protection Manager (RPM) subject to the following:
a.
In lieu of the description in Section 5.1 of ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981, cold license examinations should be defined as those that are administered before l
the unit has completed preoperational testing and initial operations as described in its Final l Safety Analysis Report as amended and approved by the Commission.
Hot examinations are those administered after this condition is ~
4 l
attained.
h b.
Cold license applicants must meet the training elements included in 3ections 4.3.1.1.c, 4.3.1.2.c, and 4.5.1.2.c. of the standard.
However, they t
l are exempt from the experience elements in Sections 4.3.1.1.b, 4.3.1.2.b, and l
4.5.1.2.b.
Hot _ license applicants are subject to both the training and exper-ience elements listed.
c.
Paragraph 2 of Section 4.3.1.1.a of ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981 is not applic-abic.
An individual who. meets..the Commission's " Policy Statement on Engineering
(
1 4
L..
~~
. ~ - - =
=._
1 s
~ '
x, y
Expertise on Shift" is rec;uired on all shifts to provide engineering expertise (see Regulatory Position C.1.j.).
?
d.
The minimum educational requirement for Shift Supervisors, Sec-tion 4.3.1.1.a, and for Senior Operators, Section 4.3.1.2.a. is a High,$chcol i
Dipicea or equivalent.
N e.
The applicant for a Senior Operator (50) license should have 4 years of responsible powe? plant experience.
Responsible power plant experience for s
an 50 is defined as having actively performed as a designated control room f
operator (fossil or nuclear) or as a power plant' staff engineer involved in the Y'f
' day-to-day activities of the facility during.or after the final yean of con-x struction.
A maximum of 2 years of responsible power plant experience may be fulfilled by academic or related technical training on a one-for-one time basi s.
Two years should be nuclear power plant experience. At least 6 months of the nuclear power plant experience should be at the plant for which an appli-cant seeks a license.
In addition, applicants for an S0 position not holding a bachelor's degree in engineering or equivalent should have held an operator's license and should have been actively involved in the performance of licensed duties for at least 1 year.
~
f.
In addition to the requirements stated in Section 5.2.1.2.1 of ANSI /
ANS-3.1-1981, classroom instruction for all license applicants should include training in the use of installed plant systems for the control and mitigation of an accident in which the core is severely damaged.
g.
In addition to the requiremente in Section 5.2.1.3.1 of ANSI /ANS-3.1-A 1981, each applicant for an operator or senior operator license should serve P
(
3 months as an extra person on shift in training for that position. These 3 months as an extra person ora shift in training should include all phases of I
day-to-day operations under the supervision of licensed personnel.
h.
Control room operating experience for hot license applicants, des.
i 1cribed in Section 5.2.1.3.1 of ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981, should include manipulation of controls of the facility during a minimum of five reactivity changes. Every effort should be made to have a diversity of reactivity changes for cach appli-cant.
Startups, shutdowns, large load changes, and changes in rod programming 5
-1 y
p 7-
~
l l
are some examples and could be' accomplished by manually using such systems as rod control, chemical shim control, or recirculation flow.
i.
All cold license applicants should participate in practical work assignments as described in Section 5.2.1.4 of ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981 for a minimum of 6 months.
j.
In addition to the responsibilities described in Section 4.4.8 of ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981, the STA should assume an active role in shift activities.
For example,the STA should review plant logs, participate in shift turnover, and maintain awareness of plant configuration and status.
The educational requirements for the STA specified in Section 4.4.8.a of ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981 are not applicable.
An independent STA should have a bachelor's degree or equiva-lent in a scientific on engineering discipline.
" Actively performing STA functions" means performing at least three shifts per quarter as the STA.
If an STA has not actively performed, the STA should receive training sufficient to ensure that the STA is cognizant of facility and procedure changes that occurred during the absence.
Combining the functions of a Senior Operator and the STA is acceptable if the provisions of the Commission's " Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift" are met.
In addition to the requirements specified in Section 4.4.8.c of ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981, the STA should have specific training in the response to and analysis of plant transients and accidents and training in the relationship of accident conditions to offsite consequences and protective action strategies.
k.
The Radiation Protection Manager should have the qualifications described in Section 4.4.4 of ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981 with the clarification that 3 of the 4 years of experience in applied radiation protection should be professional-level experience.
2.
Positions in ANSI /ANS N18.1-1971 That Are Endorsed by This Regulatory Guide For positions listed in the standard other than those under paragraph 1 above, the; requirements. contained in ANSI N18.1-1971, " Selection.and Training.
of Nuc1 ear Power P1 ant Personnel," provide an approach acceptable'to-the NRC.
6
,_,----------=,.,.,,-...-..,-r.n,
-.,n
.?
7 staff for complying with the qualifications and training requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50 and 55.
D.
IMPLEMENTATION The purpose of this section is to provide information to applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide.
Licensees and applicants may propose means other than those specified in Section C of this guide for meeting applicable regulations.
Except 'in those cases in which the applicant or licensee proposes an acceptable alternative means of complying with the Commission's regulations specified in Section A, the guidance provided in Section C has been approved for use by the staff, after [ insert date 1 year after publication] in the evaluation of the qualifications and training requirements for (1) nuclear power plant personnel as described in applications for an operating license, (2) applicants for operator and senior operator licenses, and (3) replacement personnel in those positions in operating nuclear power plants whose training programs have not yet been accredited by an accreditation program endorsed by the NRC.
l 7
VALUE/ IMPACT ANALYSIS A separate value/ impact analysis has not been prepared for this regulatory guide. A value/ impact analysis was included in the regulatory analysis for the amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 published on [date of FR Notice],a copy of which was placed in the Public Document Room at that time. This analysis is also appropriate to Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.8.
e 1
8
-