ML23156A023

PR-055 58FR29366 - Operators' Licenses

ML23156A023
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/20/1993
From:	Chilk S NRC/SECY
To:
References
PR-055, 58FR29366
Download: ML23156A023 (1)

Text

ADAMS Template: SECY-067 DOCUMENT DATE: 05/20/1993 TITLE: PR-055 - 58FR29366 - OPERATORS' LICENSES CASE

REFERENCE:

PR-055 58FR29366 KEYWORD: RULEMAKING COMMENTS Document Sensitivity: Non-sensitive - SUNSI Review Complete

STATUS OF RULEMAKING PROPOSED RULE: PR-055 OPEN ITEM (Y/N) N RULE NAME: OPERATORS' LICENSES PROPOSED RULE FED REG CITE: 58FR29366 PROPOSED RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 05/20/93 NUMBER OF COMMENTS: 41 ORIGINAL DATE FOR COMMENTS: 07/19/93 EXTENSION DATE: I I FINAL RULE FED. REG. CITE: 59FR05934 FINAL RULE PUBLICATION DATE: 02/09/94 NOTES ON FILE LOCATED ON Pl.

STATUS F RULE THE STAFF CONTACT OR VIEW THE RULEMAKING HISTORY PRESS PAGE DOWN KEY HISTORY OF THE RULE PART AFFECTED: PR-055 RULE TITLE: OPERATORS' LICENSES PROPOSED RULE PROPOSED RULE DATE PROPOSED RULE SECY PAPER: 92-430 SRM DATE: 04/27/93 SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 05/13/93 FINAL RULE FINAL RULE DATE FINAL RULE SECY PAPER: SRM DATE: I I SIGNED BY SECRETARY: 03/29/94 STAFF CONTACTS ON THE RULE CONTACTl: ANTHONY DIPALO MAIL STOP: NLS-129 PHONE: 492-3784 CONTACT2: DAVID LANGE MAIL STOP: l0D-22 PHONE: 504-3171

DOCKET NO. PR-055 (58FR29366)

In the Matter of OPERATORS' LICENSES DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 05/14/93 05/13/93 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - PROPOSED RULE 06/07/93 06/03/93 COMMENT OF DOUGLAS AND ELLA CRAIG ( 1) 06/12/93 07/06/93 COMMENT OF MIT - NUC REACTOR LAB.

(DR. J.A. BERNARD, JR.) ( 6) 06/21/93 06/08/93 COMMENT OF MARY ANNE BRIGHT ( 2) 06/24/93 06/18/93 COMMENT OF NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP.

(MR. TED C. FEIGENBAUM) ( 3) 07/02/93 06/29/93 COMMENT OF IONS (THOMAS W. ORTCIGER) ( 4)

- 07/09/93 07/01/93 COMMENT OF MR. JAMES A. BANKE ( 5) 07/12/93 07/06/93 COMMENT OF OPPD (W.G. GATES, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 7) 07/13/93 07/09/93 COMMENT OF STATE OF VERMONT - PUBLIC SERVICE (RICHARD P. SEDANO, COMMISSIONER) ( 8) 07/15/93 07/14/93 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA (MR. DAVID W. FREEMAN) ( 9) 07/15/93 07/14/93 COMMENT OF UNIV. OF FLORIDA TRAINING REACTOR (WILLIAM G. VERNETSON, DIRECTOR) ( 10) 07 /15/93 07 /14/93 COMMENT OF GENERAL ATOMICS (DR. JUNAID RAZVI) ( 11) 07/16/93 07/09/93 COMMENT OF FORD NUCLEAR REACTOR - UNIV. OF MICHIGAN (REED R. BURN) ( 12) 07/16/93 07/13/93 COMMENT OF WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE (LEO M. BOBEK, DIRECTOR} ( 13) 07/19/93 07/16/93 COMMENT OF SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMPANY (J.D. WOODARD, EXEC. VICE PRESIDENT) ( 14)

DOCKET NO. PR-055 (58FR29366)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 07/19/93 07/15/93 COMMENT OF UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA (ROBERT U. MULDER, DIRECTOR) ( 15) 07/19/93 07/14/93 COMMENT OF NIST (J. MICHAEL ROWE) ( 16) 07/19/93 07/19/93 COMMENT OF CONSOLIDATED EDISON CO. OF NY, INC.

(STEPHEN B. BRAM, VICE PRESIDENT) ( 17) 07/19/93 07/15/93 COMMENT OF OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY (A.G. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR) ( 18) 07 /19/93 07/14/93 COMMENT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY (MR. STEPHEN J. BILYJ) ( 19) 07/19/93 07/19/93 COMMENT OF PROS (CARL M. GRAY, PRESIDENT) ( 20) 07 /19/93 07/16/93 COMMENT OF GEORGIA POWER CO. (C.K. MCCOY, VP) ( 21) 07/19/93 07/06/93 COMMENT OF ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. (JOHN R. MCGAHA) ( 22) 07/19/93 07/14/93 COMMENT OF TRTR - UNIV OF FLORIDA (WILLIAM G. VERNETSON, CHAIRMAN) ( 23) 07/19/93 07/19/93 COMMENT OF NUMARC (THOMAS E. TIPTON) ( 24)

- 07/20/93 07/19/93 COMMENT OF FPC\ (ROLF WIDELL, DIRECTOR) ( 25) 07/20/93 07/14/93 COMMENT OF DAVID M. ZIEBELL, PRESIDENT REG 5 ( 26) 07/20/93 07/16/93 COMMENT OF UNIV. OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN (RICHARD L. HOLM, REACTOR SUPERVISOR) ( 27) 07/20/93 07/15/93 COMMENT OF MR. ROBIN NYE ( 28) 07/22/93 07/18/93 COMMENT OF MR. CHARLES C. THOMAS, JR. ( 29) 07/22/93 07/15/93 COMMENT OF UNIV. OF WISCONSIN (R.J. CASHWELL, REACTOR DIRECTOR) ( 30) 07/22/93 07/19/93 COMMENT OF OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY (MR. JOSEPH W. TALNAGI) ( 31) 07/23/93 07/19/93 COMMENT OF PECO (G.A. HUNGER, JR., DIRECTOR) ( 32) 07/23/93 07/16/93 COMMENT OF DLC {J.D. SIEBER) { 33) 07/26/93 07 /19/93 COMMENT OF CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY (J.F. OPEKA, EXEC. VICE PRESIDENT) ( 34)

DOCKET NO. PR-055 (58FR29366)

DATE DATE OF TITLE OR DOCKETED DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT 07/26/93 07/23/93 COMMENT OF TVA (MR. BRUCE S. SCHOLFIELD) ( 35) 07/26/93 07/19/93 COMMENT OF CP&L (R.W. PRUNTY, MANAGER) ( 36) 07/28/93 07/09/93 COMMENT OF GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION (C. A. MASCARI, V.P.) ( 37) 07/28/93 07/21/93 COMMENT OF ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (THOMAS R. BRADISH) ( 38) 08/02/93 07/29/93 COMMENT OF VIRGINIA POWER (M. L. BOWLING) ( 39) 08/06/93 07/30/93 COMMENT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY (JOHN L. SKOLDS, V.P.) ( 40) 08/20/93 08/12/93 COMMENT OF IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY (KEITH D. YOUNG) ( 41) 02/03/94 02/02/94 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE - FINAL RULE

• 94 FEB - 3 AS :32

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 55 RIN-3150-AE39 Renewal of Licenses and Requalification Requirements for Licensed Operators AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission {NRC) is amending its regulations to delete the requirement that each licensed operator at power, test, and research reactors pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. The final rule requires that facility licensees shall have a requalification program reviewed and approved by the Comission and shall, upon request consistent with the needs of the Comission's inspection program, submit to the Convnission a copy of its annual operating tests or comprehensive written examinations used for operator requalification for review by the Commission. In addition, the final rule amends the "Scope" provisions of the regulations pertaining to operators' licenses to include facility licensees. The amendments will improve 1

pJ. {7y,v J../1l1L/

J S-etFR S'</34

operational safety at each facility by redirecting NRC resources to administer the requalification program by inspecting and overseeing facility requalification programs rather than conducting requalification examinations.

This, in turn, will reduce both licensee and NRC costs related to the program.

EFFECTIVE DATE: {30 days after publication in the Federal Register.}

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony DiPalo, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: {301} 492-3784, or Frank Collins~ Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone {301} 504-3173.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act {NWPA} of 1982 authorized and directed the NRC "to promulgate regulations, or other appropriate Commission regulatory guidance, for the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear power plant operators, supervisors, technicians and other appropriate operating personnel." The regulations or guidance were to "establish simulator training requirements for applicants for civilian nuclear power plant operator licenses and for operator requalification programs; requirements governing NRC administration of requalification examinations; requirements for operating tests at civilian nuclear power plant simulators, and instructional requirements for civilian nuclear power plant licensee 2

personnel training programs." On March 25, 1987 {52 FR 9453), the Commission accomplished the objectives of the NWPA that were related to licensed operators by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register that amended 10 CFR Part 55 and became effective May 26, 1987. The amendment revised the licensed operator requalification program by establishing {l) simulator training requirements, {2) requirements for operating tests at simulators, and

{3) instructional requirements for the program {formerly Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 55). The final rule also stipulated that in lieu of the Commission accepting certification by the facility licensee that the licensee has passed written examinations and operating tests given by the facility licensee within its Commission approved program developed by using a systems approach to training {SAT), the Commission may give a comprehensive requalification written examination and an annual operating test. In addition, the amended regulations required each licensed operator to pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal.

Following the 1987 amendment to Part 55, the NRC began conducting operator requalification examinations for the purpose of license renewal. As a result of conducting these examinations, the NRC determined that the existing regulations have established a high standard of licensee performance and that the NRC examiners were largely duplicating tasks that were already required of, and routinely performed by, the facility licensees.

The NRC revised its requalification examination procedures in 1988 to focus on performance-based evaluation criteria that closely paralleled the training and evaluation process used for a SAT based training program. This 3

revision to the NRC requalification examination process enabled the NRC to conduct comprehensive examinations for the purpose of renewing an individual's license and, at the same time, use the results of the examinations to determine the adequacy of the facility licensee's requalification training program.

Since the NRC began conducting its requalification examination program, the facility program and individual pass rates have improved from 81 to

• 90 percent and from 83 to 91 percent, respectively, through fiscal year 1991

• The NRC has also observed a general improvement in the quality of the facility licensees' testing materials and in the performance of their operating test evaluators. Of the first 79 program evaluations conducted, 10 programs were evaluated as unsatisfactory. The NRC issued Information Notice No. 90-54, "Summary of Requalification Program Deficiencies," dated August 28, 1990, to describe the technical deficiencies that contributed to the first 10 program failures. Since that time only 6 programs, of 120 subsequent program evaluations, have been evaluated as unsatisfactory.

Pilot requalification examinations were conducted during the period August through December 1991. The pilot test procedure directed the NRC examiners to focus on the evaluation of crews, rather than individuals, in the simulator portion of the operating test. In conducting the pilot examinations, the NRC examiners and the facility evaluators independently evaluated the crews and compared their results. The results were found to be in agreement. Furthermore, the NRC examiners noted that the facility evaluators were competent at evaluating crews and individuals and were aggressive in finding deficiencies and recommending remedial training for operators who exhibited weaknesses. The performance of the facilities' 4

evaluators during the pilot examinations further confirmed that the facility licensees can find deficiencies, provide remedial training, and retest their licensed operators appropriately.

In June 1992, the Commission agreed with the staff to proceed with initiation of rulemaking to eliminate the requirement for each licensed operator to pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and operating test administered by the Commission during the term of the

• operator's 6-year license. On December 28, 1992, proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 on renewal of licensees and requalification requirements for licensed operators were submitted to the Commission for approval.

On May 20, 1993 {58 FR 29366), the Commission published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to amend 10 CFR Part 55. The proposed amendments were to:

1. Delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass an NRC-administered requalification examination during the term of his or her license *

2. Require that facility licensees submit to the NRC their annual requalification operating tests and comprehensive requalification written examinations at least 30 days prior to the conduct of these tests and examinations.

3. Include "Facility Licensees" in the "Scope" of Part 55.

The period for public comment on the proposed amendments ended on July 20, 1993.

5

Su11111ary of Public Co11111ents The NRC received 42 co11111ents on the proposed rule. Based on analysis of these co11111ents, several changes have been made in the final rule. A su11111ary of the public conments and, where appropriate, a description of the changes that resulted from them is discussed for each of the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 55.

• 1. Proposed Amendment: Delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass an NRC-administered requalification examination during the term of a licensed operator's 6-year license.

General Statement: Of the 42 co11111ents received, 36 favored this proposed amendment and 6 opposed its adoption. Most of the respondents who favored the proposed change based their support on the expectation that this change would reduce the regulatory burden on licensees and would improve operational safety at nuclear facilities. One respondent indicated that while the NRC's involvement has had a positive impact on the content and conduct of licensee requalification, utilities have proven their ability to develop and administer requalification examinations that meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(iii). Another respondent representing the utility industry stated that, "We believe the performance-based inspection process will be an effective means for ensuring high quality operator requalification programs."

This respondent further stated, "The proposed rule change will also afford better operating crew continuity. Because personnel changes occur over time, operating crews may be configured with individuals who have or have not had an NRC administered exam. In the past, it has been a common practice to reconfigure crews to accommodate the NRC-administered requalification 6

examination by putting together individuals whose 6 years is about to end.

Use of this practice to facilitate the conduct of requalification exams may not be in the best interest of crew coordination and teamwork."

The six comments in opposition to the proposed amendment to delete the NRC-conducted requalification examination varied in content. For example, two public citizen respondents were against a rule change of any kind on the basis it would give the public the perception that the NRC's authority over the

• operation of power and non-power reactor plants would be weakened. Two respondents, one representing a State public service department with over-sight of a nuclear power plant and a second representing a State nuclear safety department, urged that from a defense-in-depth standpoint to reactor safety the proposed rule should be reconsidered. The State of Vermont, in two separate comments, indicated that it was because of the current regulation that the NRC was able to detect the unsatisfactory requalification program at Vermont Yankee and identify corrective actions to ensure safety of the plant.

The State of Illinois contended that the current regulations provided incentive for licensees to maintain quality operator training programs and that the likelihood of further improving or even maintaining that quality without the periodic independent involvement by the NRC is unlikely. The State of Illinois recommended a combination of routine NRC inspections of crew examinations on a plant simulator and a periodic independent test administered simultaneously to all licensed operators every 6 years. Finally, one respondent was opposed to this amendment, especially its application to test and research reactors and suggested the existing rule be deleted because the regulatory analysis for the 1987 rule stated that the rule would not apply to non-power reactors (NPR). This same respondent believed it important to 7

maintain NRC staff competence in relation to NPR operator licensing and felt this could be accomplished by maintaining a nucleus of specialized qualified personnel, either as part of or in conjunction with the NPR directorate, and through specialized training and administration of initial examinations, which occur rather frequently.

Response: After reviewing the six conments opposing the proposed regulation, the Conmission has concluded that the basis for this requirement

• remains sound and that it should be adopted.

the following considerations:

(i)

This determination is based on The NRC believes that since the beginning of the requalification program, experience indicates that weaknesses in implementation of facility licensee's programs are generally the root cause of deficiencies in the performance of operators.

(ii) The NRC believes if its resources were directed towards inspection and oversight of facility licensee's requalification programs rather than continuing to conduct individual operator requalification examinations, the operational safety at each facility will continue to be ensured and in fact, will be improved. A routine inspection frequency of once per SALP cycle will ensure consistency between inspection scheduling and licensee performance. A minimum routine inspection frequency of at least once every 2 years will ensure active NRC oversight of facility licensee's requalification programs.

For facility licensees with good performance, consideration will be given to not performing an onsite inspection during the SALP period.

(iii) The NRC believes that the facility requalification programs have been demonstrated to be basically sound during the pilot examinations. Given the broad range of possible approaches built into the inspection process, the 8

NRC would only conduct examinations when they are the most effective tool to evaluate and understand the programmatic issues, or if the NRC loses confidence in the facility licensee's ability to conduct its own examinations.

Examples which could result in a regional management decision for a "for cause" requalification examination include:

a. Requalification inspection results which indicate an ineffective licensee requalification program;

• b. Operational problems for which operator error is a major contributor;

c. A SALP Category 3 rating in plant operations attributed to operator performance; and

d. Allegations regarding significant training program deficiencies.

When conditions such as these exist, the NRC may initiate planning to conduct requalification examinations during the next annual examination cycle scheduled by the facility.

Regarding the comments from the State of Vermont, the proposed inspection program includes reviews, observations, and parallel grading of selected operating tests and written examinations by NRC examiners, reviews of operational performance, interviews of facility personnel, and a general inspection of the facility licensee's implementation of its requalification training program. Application of the inspection program in the case of Vermont Yankee would have disclosed discrepancies in evaluation of operator performance and also would have allowed insight to other, more programmatic, deficiencies. The requalification inspection program implements routine NRC inspections as recommended by the State of Illinois as well as "for cause" examinations.

9

The CoD111ission believes the existing regulation should not be deleted in the case of non-power reactors, as recommended in the public comments. A continuing need exists for the regulation to apply to operators of all types of reactors. The proposed amendment will continue to ensure operational safety at non-power reactors by inspecting facility requalification programs rather than conducting requalification examinations. The NRC will maintain examiner proficiency by conducting examinations for initial license

• applicants .

2. Proposed Amendment: Require that facility licensees submit to the NRC their annual requalification operating tests and comprehensive requalification written examinations at least 30 days prior to conducting these tests and examinations.

General Statement: Of the 42 comments received, only 1 respondent favored the amendment as proposed. This response came from a university operated research reactor, stating that submitting requalification examinations by the facility to the NRC for review prior to administering the examination was less burdensome, by comparison, than retaining the existing regulation. On the other hand, most respondents stated that submitting all examinations and tests to the NRC 30 days before their administration would place an undue burden on facility licensees and the NRC with little return on the investment. Several respondents offered alternatives that included shortening the lead time, requiring that the examinations and tests be submitted after they are administered, submitting the question banks from which the examinations are developed, and simply having the examinations available for on-site inspection.

10

Response: This requirement was included in the proposed regulation so that the NRC could evaluate the proposed examination materials, in conjunction with other information already available to the NRC, to determine the scope of the on-site inspection. However, the pilot inspection program has demonstrated that a facility's proposed examinations are not an absolute necessity in preparing for the on-site activities. In addition, those facility licensees' examination and simulator scenario banks that were

• evaluated were found to be adequate for an effective requalification program to be managed by the licensees' staffs. Although being able to review the proposed examinations at the NRC did save some on-site inspection effort, the inspectors were still able to complete the Temporary Inspection procedures within the time allowed (i.e., two inspectors on-site for 1 week).

The NRC believes that it will be advantageous to have selected examinations available for review at NRC offices in addition to other documentation customarily provided, consistent with the Commission's inspection program needs. During the on-site inspection, the inspectors will observe the facility evaluators administer written examinations and operating tests to the crews being evaluated. Although the facility examination may last several weeks, the NRC's on-site inspection usually lasts only one week.

Normally, the NRC intends to request that the facility licensee submit only those written examinations or operating tests that will be administered during the week of the NRC inspection. Obtaining this examination material in advance of the inspection will allow the inspectors to prepare for their on-site inspection activities by reviewing the examinations or tests before they travel to the facility. This advance preparation will result in a more effective use of on-site inspection time and reduce the burden on the facility 11

licensee by placing fewer demands on their training staff during the examination week. Therefore, the NRC will delete the amendment to§ 55.59(c) as proposed from the final rulemaking and will require instead that comprehensive written examinations or operating tests be submitted upon request consistent with the Convnission's inspection program needs and sustained effectiveness of the facility licensee's examination and simulator scenario banks.

• 3. Proposed Amendment: Include facility licensees in the scope of 10 CFR 55, specifically§ 55.2, will be revised to include facility licensees.

General Statement: Only 1 of the 42 respondents to the FRN addressed and endorsed this provision of the proposed rulemaking.

Response: The NRC believes the absence of co11111ents regarding this proposal substantiates the NRC's position that this is simply an administrative correction and does not materially change the intent of the regulation. The NRC considers this amendment as an administrative addition to these regulations. The NRC proposed this change to eliminate the ambiguities between the regulations of Parts 50 and 55. Section 50.54(i) through (m) already imposes Part 55 requirements on facility licensees, and Part 55 already specifies requirements for facility licensees. On this basis, the NRC has determined that the requirement should be adopted.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The Convnission has determined that under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Convnission's regulations in Subpart A 12

of 10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal Action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements that are

• subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 {44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) .

These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0101.

The rule will relax existing information collection requirements for the separately cleared, "Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Licensing Training and Requalification Programs." The public burden for this collection of information is expected to be reduced by 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> per licensee. This reduction includes the time required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send co111nents regarding the estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch {MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conwnission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, {3150-0101), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

13

Regulatory Analysis The Conmission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this regulation.

The analysis examines the values (benefits) and impacts (costs) of implementing the regulation for licensed operator requalification. The analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Anthony DiPalo, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3784.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Conmission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. This rule primarily affects the companies that own and operate light-water nuclear power reactors and non-power research reactors. The companies that own and operate these reactors do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entity" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121.

14

Backfit Analysis The staff believes that it could ensure and improve operational safety at each facility by directing its resources to inspect and oversee facility requalification programs rather than conducting requalification examinations.

The staff's experience since the beginning of the requalification program indicates that weaknesses in the implementation of the facility programs are generally the root cause of significant deficiencies in the performance of licensed operators. The staff could more effectively allocate its resources to perform on-site inspections of facility requalification examination and training programs in accordance with indicated programmatic performance rather than scheduling examiners in accordance with the number of individuals requiring license renewal. By re-directing the examiner resources, the staff expects to find and correct progra11111atic weaknesses earlier, and thus improve operational safety.

Currently, facility licensees assist in developing and coordinating the NRC-conducted requalification examinations. The assistance includes providing to the NRC the training material used for development of the written examinations and operating tests and providing facility personnel to work with the NRC during the development and conduct of the examinations. The Commission has concluded on the basis of the analysis required by 10 CFR 50.109, that complying with the requirements of this final rule would reduce the regulatory burden on the facility licensees by reducing the effort expended by the facility licensees to assist the NRC in developing and conducting NRC requalification examinations for licensed operators. A smaller increase in regulatory burden is anticipated due to a need for the facility 15

licensee to provide data and support for periodic requalification program inspections.

As part of the final rule, facility licensees shall have a requalification program reviewed and approved by the Commission and shall, upon request consistent with the Commission's inspection program needs, submit a copy of its comprehensive written examinations or annual operating tests to the Commission. The NRC has determined that the pilot inspection program demonstrated that the facility's proposed examinations are not an absolute necessity in preparing for the on-site activities. Therefore, the NRC would request test submittal on a case-by-case basis consistent with the Commission's test inspection program needs and review these examinations for conformance with 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(i&ii). The NRC would continue to expect each facility to meet all of the conditions required of a requalification program in accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c).

Licensed operators would not have to take any additional actions. Each operator would be expected to continue to meet all the conditions of his or her license described in 10 CFR 55.53, which includes passing the facility requalification examinations for license renewal. Each licensed operator would be expected to continue to meet the requirements of the facility requalification training program. However, the licensed operator would no longer be required to pass a requalification examination conducted by the NRC during the term of his or her license in addition to passing the facility licensee's requalification examinations, as a condition of license renewal.

The "Scope" of Part 55, 10 CFR 55.2, would be revised to include facility licensees. This is an administrative addition to these regulations.

It eliminates currently existing ambiguities between the regulations of 16

Parts 50 and 55. Part 50, in §50.54{i) through {m), already imposes Part 55 requirements on facility licensees, and Part 55 already specifies requirements for facility licensees.

The Cormiission believes that licensed operators are one of the main components and possibly the most critical component of continued safe reactor operation, especially with respect to mitigating the consequences of emergency conditions. Two-thirds of the requalification programs that have been evaluated as "unsatisfactory" had significant problems in the quality or implementation of the plant's emergency operating procedures (EOPs). In some of these cases, the facility licensees did not train their operators on challenging simulator scenarios or did not retrain their operators after the EOPs were revised. The Cormiission believes that it could have identified these problems sooner by periodic inspection of facility requalification training and examination programs. Facility licensees could have then corrected these problems and improved overall operator job performance sooner.

This final rule will improve operational safety by providing the staff direction to find and correct weaknesses in facility licensee requalification programs. The experience gained from conducting NRC requalification examinations indicates that the NRC is largely duplicating the efforts of the facility licensees to maintain a high standard of operator performance. The NRC could now, by amending the regulations, more effectively use its resources to oversee facility licensee requalification programs rather than conducting individual operator requalification examinations. In FY92, the NRC resources committed to this program for NRC staff and contractor support were approximately 12 FTE and $1.3 million (equivalent to 8 FTE), respectively.

The staff projects that a slightly larger average number of examinations, 17

requiring approximately 1.5 additional staff FTE and an additional $200,000 contractual support {equivalent to 1.25 FTE), would be conducted in future years if the NRC continues conducting requalification examinations for all licensed operators. Thus, if it is assumed that without the rule change, this program would continue into the future, the relevant baseline NRC burden would approximate $2.85 {1.35 NRC + 1.5 contractor) million per year in 1992 dollars for FY93 through FY97. The 13.5 {12 + 1.5) NRC staff years {FTE) were converted to $1.35 million {$100,000 per staff year) based on allowances for composite wage rates and direct benefits. 1 Under the final rule change, NRR's analysis indicates that NRC staff could perform all necessary inspections of requalification exam programs with 11 NRC FTEs and $300,000 in contractor support, equivalent to 1.85 contractor FTEs, per year. At $100,000 per NRC FTE and $162,000 per contractor FTE, this converts to an annual cost in 1992 dollars of $1.4 million. Thus, the annual savings in NRC operating costs is estimated to be on the order of

$1.45 million {$2.85 million less $1.4 million). Over an assumed 25-year remaining life, based on a 5% real discount rate, the 1992 present worth savings in NRC resources is estimated at about $20.25 million in 1992 dollars.

Each facility licensee would continue in its present manner of conducting its licensed operator requalification program. However, this final 1

NRC labor costs presented here differ from those developed under the NRC's license fee recovery program. For regulatory analysis purposes, labor costs are developed under strict incremental cost principles wherein only variable costs that are directly related to the development, implementation, and operation and maintenance of the proposed requirement are included. This approach is consistent with guidance set forth in NUREG/CR-3568, "A Handbook for Value Impact Assessment," and general cost benefit methodology.

Alternatively, NRC labor costs for fee recovery purposes are appropriately designed for full cost recovery of the services rendered and, as such, include non-incremental costs {e.g. overhead and administrative and logistical support costs).

18

rule reduces the burden on the facility licensees because each facility licensee would have its administrative and technical staff expend fewer hours than are now needed to assist in developing and conducting the NRC requalification examinations. Facility licensees are expected to realize a combined annual operational cost savings of approximately $1.24 million. Over an assumed 25-year remaining life, based on a 5% real discount rate, the 1992 present worth industry savings is estimated at about $17.48 million in 1992 dollars.

In su11111ary, the final rule will result in improved operational safety by providing more timely identification of weaknesses in facility licensees' requalification programs. In addition, the final rule would also reduce the resources expended by both the NRC and the licensees. The Commission has, therefore, concluded that the final rule meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.109, that there would be a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety and the cost of implementation is justified.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 55 Criminal penalty, Manpower training programs, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and record-keeping 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, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 55.

19

PART 55 - OPERATORS' LICENSES

1. The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 55 continues to read as follows:

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).

2. In § 55.2, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

§ 55.2 Scope.

(c) Any facility licensee.

§ 55.57 [Amended]

3. Section 55.57(b)(2)(iv) is amended by removing paragraph (b)(2)(iv).

4. In § 55.59, the introductory text of paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows: § 55.59 Requalification.

(c) Requa1ification program requirements. A facility licensee shall have a requalification program reviewed and approved by the Conmission and shall, upon request consistent with the Conmission's inspection program needs, submit to the Conrnission a copy of its comprehensive requalification written examinations or annual operating tests. The requalification program must meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(l) through (7) of this section. In 20

lieu of paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) of this section, the Col'llllission may approve a program developed by using a systems approach to training.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this '1--~ day of February, 1994.

For the N lear Regulatory Col'llllission.

21

Iowa Electric Light and Power Company

• 93 AUG 20 AlO :47 August 12, 1993 rr ,,

• F :::-

~ j.J., ,~ '

NG-93-3257 *.*.,cnf . :-.~  ; 1r;r

! r\ - ~ i 1 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary Office of the Secretary of the Commission U. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Duane Arnold Energy Center Docket No: 50-331 Op. License No: DPR-49 Comments on Proposed Rulemaking:

Operators' Licenses

Reference:

58 Federal Register 29366, dated May 20, 1993 File: A-105

Dear Mr. Chilk:

On May 20, 1993, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission published a proposed revision to 10 CFR Part 55, Operators' Licenses. The NRC requested comments on its proposal to delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. This letter responds to that request.

Iowa Electric Light and Power Company fully supports the proposed rule change and agrees with the NRC's opinion stated in the Federal Register that the proposed rule change will reduce regulatory burden on licensees and will improve operational safety at nuclear facilities.

The main benefit we see will stem from removing the requirement for NRC administered requalification exams. This will reduce burdens on licensees by (1) eliminating costly duplication and shipping of training material used to develop the examinations to the NRC and NRC contractors, (2) reducing time and travel expenses of licensee personnel who work with the NRC to develop exams, and (3) reducing NRC fees for NRC time spent administering examinations and related contractor costs. We feel that the NRC's estimate of $820k for annual cost savings to facility licensees is reasonable based on our experience and the assumption that the costs are evenly distributed over 100 nuclear plants.

We also agree with the NRC's conclusion that operational safety OCT 1 1993 Acknowledged by card ......................".....- ..

Duane Arnold Energy Center

• 3277 DAEC Road

• Palo, Iowa 52324

• 319/851-7611

,.$. M*:*:.J- 1. , **'.t.:GUl:\TC*RY COMMISSIOt-.

ooc;.*_:TH-.:) t :!ERVIGE SECTION

,xr--:~-: GF ThE SECRETARY Cr : /*.': CO~,~~.USSiON

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk August 12, 1993 NG-93-3257 Page 2 will be improved by more effective allocation of its resources to perform on-site inspections of facility requalification examinations and training programs. Under the existing regulations, as the industry matures, the number of licensed operators who require NRC administered exams will stabilize at a lower number, yet the utilities and NRC would have to expend nearly the same amount of resources to conduct fewer exams. We feel these resources would be more effectively utilized in NRC inspections of facility programs and examinations.

If you have any questions on the above, please contact me at (319)851-7229.

Very truly yours,

~ ,J,GJ()i .

Keith D. Yo</ng~

Manager, Nuclear Licensing KDY/PMB/pjv~

cc: P. Bessette L. Liu L. Root J. Franz R. Pulsifer (NRC-NRR)

John B. Martin (Region III)

NRC Resident Office DCRC

~

South Carolina Electric & Gas Company John L. Skolds P.O. Box 88 Vice President Jenkinsville, SC 29065 Nuclear Operations (803) 345-4040 SCE&G r. " l/!' - . I ,.  !.BERPR

! hL'!*.1 5. OOCl-t:. 1ED ASCANn C,Jfnpc.in_v t.h ' *" , , .

t'r1*JhJ~ED RULE r-. us~mc

( 58'" f R 1-C/-3 6 6)

• 93 n\JG - 6 P 4 :20 July 30, 1993 Refer to: RC-93-0210 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50/395 OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-12 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO 10CFR55 South Carolina Electric & Gas offers the following comments on the proposed changes to 10CFR55.

The proposed amendment to 10CFR55 wi 11 be very beneficial in reducing the

~dministrative burden on the training staffs and stress level of the licensed operators imposed by the NRC-administered requalification examinations.

Clarification is needed in the Supplemental Information for future guidance as to the intent of the Commission in amending the rule.

• Paragraph 2 of the Discussion uses vague and ambiguous terms, such as 11 oversees 11 (Line 5), "indicated programmatic performance" (Lines 19 - 20},

and "programmatic weaknesses" {Line 25). This is reinforced by the third sentence in Paragraph 5, 11 * * *

• to determine the scope of an on-site e inspection **** "

In the Supplemental Information for 10CFR50.120 there were concerns expressed [Comment 6(a)] regarding the manner in which the NRC will monitor implementation of the rule. This concern was addressed by citing inspection Procedure 41500 and NUREG-1220 as the approved guidance for NRC inspections. The Supplementary Information also cites ACAD 91-015, The Objective and Criteria for Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power, as the accepted criteria for determining a systems approach to training as defined in 10CFR55.4 The Supplementary Information for the amended 10CFR55 should be consistent with 10CFR55.120 in providing guidance to the staff in regard to inspection criteria.

OCT 1 1993 Acknowledged by card ..................................

(f.S. NUC' ~ =. .R flf"<':!ILA"i"OEYCC'MMISSIOt-.

0 :r1*: T1:i~> F:. sr:nViC!: SECTION Ot:r*C: ur: i'*:~ :£Cf1[TARY C':* TL:. ';C)~i~/.lSG:ON

' I

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk PR 930029 Page 2 of 2

• Paragraph 5 of the Discussion requires the NRC to review the examination for conformance to 10CFR55.59(a)(2)(i & ii). It does not endorse any criteria for conducting this review, specifically, the 600 series Examiners Standards contained in NUREG-1021. Compliance with the very prescriptive 600 series Examiner Standards is the major source of the administrative burden placed on the licensee to support the NRC-administered requalification examination. Further, many of the provisions of the 600 series Examiners Standards will not be applicable to an NRC review function only.

The applicability of 600 Series Examiners Standards should be clarified as applicable to NRC administered exams only and alternative guidance for reviewing the licensee supplied examination for conformance to 10CFR55.59(a)(2)(i &ii) should be developed.

It is apparent that the NRC license examiners will be given the responsibility for conducting training inspections. NRC license examiners may only be experts in one factor of the Systems Approach to Training (SAT),

evaluation of the trainee. Provisions need to be established to adequately prepare the license examiners to effectively inspect the remaining four factors of the SAT process.

If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Ken Woodward of my staff at (803) 345-5100.

~~

John L. Skolds CAC:lcd c: 0. W. Dixon R. Evans R.R. Mahan NSRC R. J. White Central File System G. F. Wunder RTS (PR 930029)

K. W. Woodward File (811.02, 55.005)

NUCLEAR EXCELLENCE - A SUtl4ER TRADITION!

no~: ET NUMBER PR 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 PROP r-ED RULE 55 (58'rR 2.0J?J66}

.,ChL i LL*

!JSNHC July 29, 1993

• 93 AUG -2 PS :09 VIRGINIA POWER Secretary Serial No.93-340 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NL&P/RBP Washington, D. C. 20555 ATIN: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE 10 CFR 55 OPERATORS' LICENSES In the May 20, 1993 Federal Register, the NRC requested comments on a proposed rule concerning operators' licenses. The proposed change deletes the requirement that each licensed operator at power, test and research reactors pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. The proposed amendment will require facility licensees to submit copies of each annual operating test or comprehensive written examination used for operator requalification for review by the Commission at least 30 days prior to conducting the examination or the test. In addition, the proposed rule will amend the "Scope" provisions of the regulations pertaining to operators' licenses to include facility licensees.

We endorse the NUMARC comments sent separately to the NRC. We strongly support the rule change to remove the current requirement for an NRC administered examination as a condition for license renewal. In addition, we have the following comments.

The proposed requirement to submit the examination and annual operating test for each operating shift 30 days prior to administering the written examination is overly restrictive, would require extensive resources to support, and would make utilities reluctant to enhance or update material after they are submitted to the NRC and prior to administration of the exams. This creates an undue burden on the utilities as well as the NRC, and we recommend elimination of this requirement.

OCT 11993 Acknowledged by card ....."""*"'""'""""'"'"

In lieu of the current proposal we recommend the following items be submitted to and maintained current with the NRC :

• Copy of operators exam bank (written, scenarios, job performance measurements)

• Description of utilities sample plan methodology

• Licensed operator requalification program schedule and topics presented

• Utility documents I procedures which govern adherence to NRC rules and regulations for licensed operators These documents, in conjunction with on-site inspections by the NRC would accomplish the two important items this rule change is attempting to address which is the maintenance of high quality operator training programs and the reduction of the regulatory burden on utilities.

If you have any questions, please contact us.

Very truly yours,

$/l~

M. L. Bowling, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Programs

Arizona Public Service Company P.O . BOX 53999

• PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85072-3999

• 93 JUL 28 P3 :S 2 102-02580-TRB/BAG July 21 , 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Docketing and Services Branch Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Proposed Rule - Operator's Licenses; Request for Public Comment 58 Fed. Reg. 29366 (May 20, 1993)

File: 93-024-026 In response to the request for public comment concerning the Proposed Rule -

Operator's Licenses, Arizona Public Service Company (APS) has reviewed the comments prepared by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NU MARC).

APS agrees with and endorses the comments provided by NUMARC in correspondence dated July 19, 1993.

Should you have any questions, please call me at (602) 393-5421.

Sincerely, ~

~~

Thomas R. Bradish, Manager Nuclear Regulatory Affairs TRB/BAG/bcf cc: W. F. Conway R. J. Stevens F. H. Doyle APS Arizona Public Service Company PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION OCT 1 1993 STATION 1(o,30 P.O. BOX 52034

• PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85072-2034 Acknowledged by card ...........................- ..

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM'6SION DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMJSSION

l *])Nuclear GPU Nuclear Corporation One Upper Pond Road Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 201-316-7000 TELEX 136-482 Writer's Direct Dial Number.

July 9, 1993 C311-93-2105 C312-93-2052 C321-93-2192 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Att: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Gentlemen:

Subject:

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 1 (TMI-1)

DPR-50/Docket 50-289 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Unit 2 {TMI-2)

DPR-73/Docket 50-320 Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station {OC)

DPR-16/Docket 50-219 Proposed Rule Change to 10 CFR Part 55, "Operators' Licenses" 9 We have reviewed the proposed rule change and the following is our comment.

No purpose or benefit to requiring utility submittal of constructed annual or biennial examinations to the NRC "at least 30 days prior to conducting such test" is provided. This requirement will add administrative burden and interfere with the utilities ability to modify the examinations in progress based on feedback from the examination process. Examinations are typically spread over a 6 week period requiring multiple submissions. The codification also leaves many questions open regarding re-examination submittal and administration. The requirement should be deleted from the rule change.

If a need for a requirement exists in this area, then change 10 CFR 55.59 para. {c) wording to:

" .. shall submit a copy of each comprehensive requalification written examination or annual operating test to the appropriate Regional Administrator within 90 days of the completion of the facility examination annual or biennial examination period."

9307130245 PDR 930709 AD0CK.05000289 [ .*. OCT 1 1993 V PDR Acknowledged by card ..................................

GPU Nuclear Corporation is a subsidiary of General Public Utilities Corporation

,,,...,. t ,. ~t..  : .*

L: .

, :;. ~,.

p,. ,. .. \

(:,*t- *,.-

),

I

\..

v*

)

L.

• f

/

- ~

,.J \'\ (*,* *.**r'*

,1 ** , , *~ 1_'..... r , I** *~-' -~-n-

.:./

'Ill!,.;-

~

_, -*

• 1~ ,0~n .* ,.,..;,*t

' ' *' ', ~ '25.

~~

C3J.l-93-2105 C312-93-2052 C321-93-2192 Page 2 I

Additional submittal requirements to support specific inspections can be incorporated into the inspection procedures and need not be codified.

If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Mr. John Fornicola, Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Director at (201) 316-7334.

Sincerely, a~ ~41>,~

C. A. Mascari Vice President and Director, Nuclear Assurance CAM/JCF/plp .

cc: Administrator, Region 1 Oyster Creek NRC Project Manager TMI NRC Project Manager Senior NRC Resident Inspector, OC Senior NRC Resident Inspector, TMI

... ~ , . ,......... - .,..., -- ,._ . ...... . ..

fJUL 19 1993 *93 JUL 26 P4 :09 SERIAL: GLS-93-164 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 H. B. ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-261/LICENSE NO. DPR-23 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-400/LICENSE NO. NPF-63 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 AND 50-324/LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 AND DPR-62 NRC PROPOSED RULE CHANGE, 10 CFR PART 55, OPERATORS' LICENSE EXAMINATION (58 FR 29366, May 20, 1993)

Gentlemen:

Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L) is pleased to provide comments on the NRC proposed rule change to 10 CFR Part 55, which was published in the Federal Register on May 20, 1993 (58 FR 29366). The proposed change would no longer require each licensed operator pass a comprehensive written examination and operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's six-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal.

Carolina Power & Light Company agrees with the proposed rule change. This proposed change is consistent with the industry's efforts ~o locate primary responsibility for licensed operator requalification examination and operating test with each utility.

However, as proposed, Subsection 55.59(c) would require each facility to submit a copy of each comprehensive written examination or annual operating test to the appropriate Regional Administrator at least 30 days in advance of the administration of the examination. This requirement will create an undue burden on licensees, as well as the NRC. It would also reduce flexibility in revising examination items that would be required by simulator and plant changes. Carolina Power & Light Company requests that the NRC eliminate this requirement or expressly provide in the regulation that a licensee be allowed to make modifications to the examination or test after its submittal to the NRC. Allowing modifications to the examination or test will ensure, where necessary, that the examination or test information accurately reflects conditions of the simulator and plant.

Acknowledged by card .. ~~!.......!..}.~.~.L......

411 Fayetteville Street

• P. 0 . Box 1551

• Raleig h. N. C. 27602 (2042GLU)

- - - - - - -- - - ~

11. .

U.S. NUCL-L\, REGULATORY COMMISSIOf'.o DOC' ETll'J3 & ERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE ... ECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Stan ticS Postmark Date 7/; q 3 11 /

Copies Received. _ _ _  ; - . . - - - --**_

Add'I Copies Rep~ed _..... 7___ _

Special Distribution,.e I D S , PiJt? ,

/xlh!4 , LCU,{ IIY:c.

I

• Docketing and Service Branch

• GLS-93-164 / Page 2 The requirement to submit examination material to the NRC seems inconsistent with the intent of the proposed rule change and the change in role of the NRC staff. Examination materials will be maintained by the utility for review during on-site inspections by the NRC and would accomplish the important items of the rule change: to maintain high-quality operator training programs, and reduce the regulatory burden.

Additionally, CP&L agrees with the comment made by the Chairman and Commissioners Remick and de Planque that NRC-administered examinations should be "for cause" only.

If further information is needed, please contact Mr. Fred A. Emerson at (919) 546-7573.

Yours very truly, Manager Generic Licensing Section JHH/jbw cc: Mr. s. D. Ebneter Mr. N. B. Le Mr. P. D. Milano Ms. B. L. Mozafari Mr. w. T. Orders Mr. R. L. Prevatte Mr. J. E. Tedrow (2042GLU)

r.0GKET NUMBER PR -,e--

PROPOSED RULE 5.;,,J

{_ 5J PR_ o2_ ?30§}

mil Tennessee Valley Authority, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga , Tennessee 37402

• 93 JUL 26 P4 :09 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (NRC) - REQUEST FOR COMMENT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 55, "OPERATORS' LICENSES -

REQUALIFICATION The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has reviewed the proposed amendment noticed in the May 20, 1993 Federal Register (58 FR 29366), and offer the following comments.

TVA supports the comments on this proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 55 made by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council and endorses their recommendations that NRC replace the requirement to supply operating test or written examinations 30 days prior to conducting the examination with a less burdensome alternative. TVA's position is that the best alternative would be to send the examinations after

• their administration. This in conjunction with onsite inspections by NRC would accomplish the main objectives of this proposed rule change, i.e., reducing the regulatory burden while maintaining high quality operator training.

TVA appreciates the opportunity to respond to this request for comment.

(7 Bruce S. Scholfield Manager, Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs cc: See Page 2 OCT 1 1993 Acknowledged by card ......."'""'"-"'""""'

U.S. 1 1UCLE.\R REGULATORY COMMISS16, DOCr<~T*t 'G & SERVICE SECTiON Offi*... : OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSIO, Document Statistics Postmark Date fit l3fJJ. 7/J.3/f 5 Copi~s Received_/_ _ ~ - - - -

Add'I Copies Reprocl~ed £ SpeciaJ ~  !~tion

/u f-bJJ), ), ~ I KLas; PM

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 2 cc: Mr. Thomas E. Tipton Vice President and Director Nuclear Management and Resources Council 1776 Eye Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006-3706 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 E. S. Christenbury, ET llH-K Lillian M. Cuoco, LP SB-C L. B. Durham, BR lE-C R. w. Huston, Rockville Licensing Office G. L. Pannell, FSB 2K-WBN G. D. Pierce, OSE lC-BLN P. Salas, PAB lG-BFN R.H. Shell, OPS 4D-SQN RIMS, MR 2F-C F:\WP51\WPFILES\TRGRUL.egm

bOCKET NUMBER PR re--

PROPOSED RULE ..dd IGRTNEAST UTILITIES TH[ CONNECTICUT LIGHT A.ND POWER COMPANY

(_~ ~~ 9

, ,vl\L I !..L'

.3&;0 - G

- e-ne- ra- 1-O f-fic_e_

s *- S-elden Street , Berlin , Connecticut WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS ELECTRIC COMPANY U::i NHC P.O . BOX 270 HOLYOKE WATER POWER C0 ....1PANY NORTHE AST UTIL1T1f$ SERVICE COMPANY HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT~ 614 7 (203) 665-5000 31 NORTH EAST "IUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY

• 93 JUL 26 A10 :12 Docket Nos. 50-213 50-245 50-336 50-423 B14546 Re: 10CFR55 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Haddam Neck Plant Millstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 Proposed Rule Change 58 FR 29368, Operators' Licenses In response to the NRC Staff's request for comments on the proposed rule change to 10CFR55, Operators' Li censes' 1' { 58 FR 29368), Northeast Utilities (NU) hereby endorses the comments submitted on behalf of the nuclear industry by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council.'~ NU supports this proposed rule change as it relates to eliminating the routine practice of conducting NRC-administered requalification examinations. The elimination of this requirement could improve operational safety at facilities by allowing the NRC to direct its resources more appropriately toward inspection and oversight.

Additionally, licensee resources currently expended to support NRC*

administered requalification examinations could be more appropriately foCU$ed on managing and implementing training programs. However, there is a provision within the proposed rule which, in our view, must be modified to allo\-.: for this refocus of resources.

Spec i fi ca 11 y, the proposal that licensees submit each annual operating test and comprehensive written examination to the NRC before it is administered would prove to be unduly burdensome to licensees. Under current practice, each facility has submitted examination materials and examinations only for the crew or crews being examined by the NRC. Doing so has had a significant impact upon licensee resources. The proposed change requiring submittal of (1) Federal Register (58 FR 29368), dated May 20, 1993.

(2) T. E. Tipton letter to S. J. Chilk, "Proposed Rule - Operators' Licenses 58 FR 29366 (May 20, 1993) Request for Comments, 11 dated July 19, 1993.

OCT 1 1993 OS3422 REV . 4-88 Acknowledged by card ......................- -..

,J.S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOr-.

DOCKETI 1G & SER VICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETAAV OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date  ;;/42q/CJ_3 Copies Received._ _ _ _1.,...__ __

Add'I Co~~ ~ed J/

Spel;~~-11£:tt'

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B14546/Page 2 July 19, 1993 all examinations 30 days prior to their use would result in significantly increased costs to each facility with little or no benefit. This is not consistent with NRC and industry initiatives to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden. The burden on NRC Sta ff resources would al so be significant. As determined by Commissioner Remick, 131 implementation of the proposed rule would require the NRC to review one examination every 23/4 hours of each working day.

The argument set forth by the NRC in support of this proposed requirement 141 is questionable. The NRC concludes that their review of the examinations will improve operational safety by providing the means to find and correct weaknesses in facility licensee requalification programs more rapidly than provided under the current regul at i ans (emphasis added). However, current practice, as specified in NUREG-1021, 151 is that the NRC conducts extensive reviews of licensees' examination banks. These banks are the source from which licensee examinations are constructed. It is doubtful that a review of examinations 30 days prior to their being administered will afford the NRC additional opportunities to find weaknesses beyond those they are afforded now. It is noteworthy in this regard that, in their backfit analysis, the NRC does not list "providing examination materials" as one of the ways in which licensees currently assist in the NRC examination process. This omission could explain the NRC's conclusion regarding improvements to safety.

If ultimately required to submit examinations to the NRC 30 days prior to use, doing so would, in effect, place the NRC in a position of training program management. The fl exi bil ity currently afforded licensees to change examination schedules, substitute examination materials, and administer post-remediation examinations would be lost due to the required 30-day NRC review period. Circumstances such as these occur within the industry on a regular basis. A licensee confronted with the need to change examination schedules or materials on short notice would be obligated, under the proposed rule change,

• to seek an exemption in accordance with 10CRF55 .11. This would pl ace an additional burden on the licensee and the Staff, with no commensurate safety benefit. There are already too many instances where the distinction between appropriate regulatory oversight and licensee management doing its job is blurred, and new regulatory initiatives should not further exacerbate the problem.

Regarding the NRC's involvement in administering examinations, the NRC's need to conduct examinations "for cause" is understandably necessary, but including any requirement to conduct examinations at a specified periodicity represents only a partial withdrawal from the current program. Any such requirement to (3) Commissioner Remick's Comments on SECY-92-430, dated February 2, 1993.

(4) Federal Register, (58 FR 29369, Backfit Analysis), dated May 20, 1993.

(5) NUREG-1021, Rev. 7, "Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," ES-601, Section C.3.a.

t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission B14546/Page 3 July 19, 1993 continue to perform examinations on a periodic basis does not appear to be consistent with the intent of the rule change and, therefore, should be discouraged.

NNECO and Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule change. If you would like to discuss our comments further, please feel free to contact us.

Very truly yours, CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY J. F. Op~  :

Executive Vice President cc: T. T. Martin, Region I Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant J. W. Andersen, NRC Acting Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 1 G. S. Vissing, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 2 V. L. Rooney, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Unit No. 3 D. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone Station W. J. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Haddam Neck Plant P. D. Swetland, Senior Resident Inspector, Millstone Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3

D~'":K!:T UMBER P ~

PR S~ jULE.,;..:;._;;;;:

~

....cJ~-..,)_ _ __

Duquesne l..ig1t Compa~ Beaver Valley Powf s~ ~

P.O. Box 4

~0 Shippingport, PA 15077-0004 JOHN D. SIEBER

'93 Jlll 23 P2 :37 (412) 393-5255 Senior Vice President and Fax (412) 643-8069 Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Power Division secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 SUbject: Proposed. Rule Change, 10 CFR Part 55, Operators* Licenses The purpose of this letter is to provide Duquesne Light Company's (DLC) comments on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposed rule change to delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass a comprehensive written examination and operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's six year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. DLC is responsible for the operation of Beaver Valley Power Station Unit Nos. 1 and 2.

DLC views the proposed change as an improvement as it will eliminate the need to rearrange crew and simulator schedules in order to support special examinations by the NRC. However, the proposed 10 CFR Part 55.59(c) states that the facility licensee "shall submit a copy of each comprehensive requalification written examination or annual operating test to the appropriate Regional Administrator at least 30 days prior to conducting such examination or test." As written, this would require DLC to submit up to a maximum of thirty examinations during each requalification cycle. This would require

• an extensive amount of preparation by the licensee in advance of any scheduled examinations in order to meet the thirty day requirement.

It will also take many person-hours for the NRC to review all of the examinations by the scheduled exam date. An alternative method would be for the licensee to submit a copy of the portion of the question bank that will be used to develop the examinations. The submitted bank would be based on the sampling plan which chooses questions from the "main" bank based on the topics covered in the operator requa l ification tra i ning.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this issue.

Si ncerely, OCT 1 1993 Acknowledged by card ..........""'"'"-'""'"*"

ur::t r, G' TORY coMMISSIO DOC E11 G l SER ICE SECTION OFFICE OFT ECRET.l.R'I OFinECO IS

~ ,tStati ticS stmark 03 _ 1/A p*es R , .:l _ _7___,

f O q '.'2 I _ _ _ _

d'\ COfAeS Re r 1 <1 71 _J/-

i~ ~:*<,J oo_f!o/JB, P/J/2) ---_

=

~

1µ!!@ I / ~ -. /- - -

. C ':Jf~

DOCKET NUMBER PR c~

PROPOSED RULE...:..::~~:;...;.:i:;

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY(5iP'~t/3G,lj NUCLEAR GROUP HEADQUARTERS 955-65 CHESTERBROOK BLVD.

WAYNE, PA 19087-5691 fJOGhETi.O U~N1{C

• 93 JUL 23 p 2 :... 6

@)

(215) 640-6000 STATION SUPPORT DEPARTMENT July 19, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch U.S. Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Philadelphia Electric Company Comments Concerning NRC Proposed Rule 10 CFR 55, "Operator Licenses" (58FR29366)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter is being submitted in response the NRC's request for comments concerning the proposed rule amending 10 CFR 55, "Operator Licenses," published in the Federal Register (i.e., 58FR29366, dated May 20, 1993). Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo) appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule. PECo supports the NRC's efforts to delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's six-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. We consider this proposed change to be highly beneficial since it should reduce the regulatory burden imposed on licensed operators while ensuring that high quality operator training programs are maintained. However, requiring facility licensees to submit examinations 30 days prior to their administration induces an unnecessary burden on the utility during examination preparation. Examinations for license operator requalification are developed based on a systematic approach to training, and therefore should represent information taught during the previous license operator requalification training period. Typically, examinations are prepared and approved approximately two (2) weeks prior the their administration.

Requiring the submittal of examinations two (2) weeks prior to the examination period may be more appropriate and in line with current practice. Furthermore, we fully endorse the Nuclear Management and Resources Council's (NUMARC's) position and comments regarding this proposed rule.

OCT 11993 Acknowledged by card ..................."..*--u

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY CnMMIS5l01' DOCKETING & SERVICE .:.er .., *~

OFFICE OF TH SECR .TAr1Y OF THE COM,.!JS~/ON Document Statistics Postmark D ta ZJp1 1/ f 3 Copif.s ;1w_: 18d I

_e_d__- ;_;- r-- - -

Add.I Copies Rcp-rod_JC Sp/4J!*rdt_Lun---,.//J ,. .:-.5_____D-e,,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 19, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Page 2 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours,

/fa.~

G. A. Hunger, r.

Director Licensing Section

• I . DOCl<ET NUMBER PR c C-PROPOSED RULE...;;,,..-- ~- ,i_.> ~

{~~m  ::..,7:!~~p _.

T

• H

• E 1298KinnearRoad ~

OHIO * -1 ~I', *. 1 *- L l!) Nr C Columbus, OH 43212-1154 Phone 614-292-6755 SfA1E UNIVERSITY

• 93 JUL 22 P3 :14 1 .i f- ~ !C~ t_":t ::.: L1\i 1,\n *.,

i;dLKf 1 !l~G '< ',;  ! VILf.

iHU,Nll!

7/19/93 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn.: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

RE: Request for Public Connent, 10 CFR Parts 55 Operator Licenses I am responding to the recent notice regarding proposed changes to 10CFR55 related to operator license examinations. These comments are offered on behalf of the Ohio State University Research Reactor facility, a medium-power research reactor operated by a nonprofit educational institution.

First, we support the Conmission's intent to delete the requirement that each licensed operator of a power, test, or research reactor pass a comprehensive written requalification examination and operating test conducted by Nuclear Regulatory Conmission (NRC) personnel during the six-year license term of the operator. We believe that the record shows that these facilities are operated safety and that the training and requalification programs conducted by facility licensees are adequate to assure continued safe operation of these facilities. We note that the NRC has recognized, as indicated in the notice requesting comments, that facility requalification programs have met Conmission expectations in the overwhelming majority of cases. Given this, we believe that NRC administration and supervision of licensee examinations may represent a case of duplication of effort and thus an unnecessary expenditure of limited and valuable resources.

We are concerned, however, about the Commission's intent to require submission of written and/or operating tests 30 days prior to conducting these examinations to the Conmission for their review. We believe that there is no need for this requirement given the (NRC-recognized) historical record of acceptability of facility-conducted examinations. Further, for the specific case of non-power reactor (NPR) facilities, the 30-day requirement may represent a somewhat cumbersome and impractical requirement since many NPR facilities do not have an annual or biannual schedule for examinations, but rather conduct them throughout the year. We are further concerned that the OCT 1 1993 College of Engineering Acknowledged by card ..................................

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI~

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COM I ->iON 0oa.ment StaU:ibcs Postmark Dale CoJj s ReailwJd

/4 /Y3 7 0

/ , ,

Add'I Copies R prOducoo -3.?

Sp~ci v~ir' ,on__R/z;;/

T/;

- :- --l~- . ---,

? ,.._,

LJ:=--:

~ /

- -~ . ~~-~/

--* -- - --- *-,., ** ~. *- -

T

• H

• E Nuclear Reactor Laboratory 1298 Kinnear Road Columbus, OH 43212-1154 OHIO Phone 614-292-6755 SfA1E UNIVERSITY 7/19/93 Page 2 submission of examination materials implies that the NRC may seek to modify the proposed examinations. It has been our experience that such modifications are often unwarranted and occasionally result in unrealistic and unfair performance requirements for examinees. We are of the opinion that the NRC has available other means for determining the adequacy of facility-conducted requalification programs. We note that Part 55 grants authority to the Conmission to conduct

!RC-sponsored examinations for cause. Also, we are aware of the requirement for facility recordkeeping, which includes operator examinations. These records are available for review by Conmission representatives as a part of routine inspection activities. Finally, we are concerned that the required submission of operator examinations for Conmission review adds another regulatory burden for NPRs, which runs counter to the mandate for minimum regulation of these facilities, given their historical record of safe operation. It has been our experience that the majority of increased regulatory activity of NPR facilities which has occurred in recent years has been unnecessary, excessive, and, in some cases, counterproductive. Indeed, it has been argued that the dramatic reduction in numbers of NPR facilities that has occurred in recent years, particularly those at nonprofit educational institutions, has been a direct result of this increased regulatory burden, which often consumes a disproportionately large fraction of somewhat meager facility budgets when compared with other NRC licensees.

In sU11111ary, we request that the Connission consider returning to its pre-1987 policy regarding administration of operator requalification examinations, and not impose the requirement of submission of examination materials 30 days prior to administration of the examination by the facilities.

I am required to note for the record that the views and opinions expressed in this letter are my own and do not necessarily constitute a statement of official policy of The Ohio State University, its representatives, or its agencies.

Thank you for considering these connents.

Sincerely, Joseph W. Talnagi Senior Research Associate College of Engineering

DOCKET NUMBER PR c:::-,,,,---

PROPOSED RULE vu ,l University of w :,~~~,n sin ( 51 R (2_ 93(,,I,, J@

NUCLEAR REACTOR LABORATORY DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING PHYSICS U'.:l Ni C ADDRESS : ~

130 MECHANICAL ENGINEERING BUILDING E-mail ; cashwell@engr .wisc.edu 1513 UNIVERSITY AVENUE PHONE 1608) 262-3392 MADISON 53706-1572 FAX (608) 262-6707 *93 JUL 22 P3 :13 July 15, 1993 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed 10 CFR Part 55 changes (RIN 3150-AE39)

Dear Sirs:

Elimination of the requirement for NRC administration of requalification examinations at least once during the 6 year term of an operating license will neither enhance nor diminish safety.

It will eliminate a considerable amount of administrative burden for both NRC and licensees.

The comments pertaining to research and test reactors indicate that sufficient data to support the same rationale for those facilities does not exist: however, a 100% pass rate to date seems a good indication that there is no problem with the requalification programs. However, the proposed rule indicates submission of the requalification examination to the Regional Administrator. An option for research and test reactors to submit to the usual examining authority should be included.

.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSJOt-.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETAAV Of THE CO 1ISSION Document Statistics tmark Date J;/; 7, /q5 pies Rereil<d

'I Copies Reproduced ~

cial ,Qistritiution2 I

~

P/)

i J 1 (J~ ,(_~ -

DOCKET NUMBER CHA ALES C. THOMAS ' OPOSED RULE PR

• {_58 FR. o2_q31.t; NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY CON 3373 Ul. Avenida. d S Santo Fl N SUL"U\NTS e . an Marcos ea ew Mexico 87505 r:.1!..l_

J::i Nr c .

(j)

~M tJ,11 I 1. CJ. I I~ $ ~~ ~~/

u~. /tlu.e 1.. /<ta ,./4,J,,,,.,.

/1.,.. Ch'M/fllS~I~

tlltA.,s /t.1113-fo Al 'l). C. 3 fJ '5S°S° It#!.. * /)I,:, k, /,""if ._/ 5:,. tmr l!J;,.,., /.

>uiyee f: ft *r .,. I (,1,. ***-! ,s /n IP {ff f1. ,I ~ - tp,,4- I,,, L,c,-.s;~

/)e,-~ /1,t" t J,,,fl;;

f/4a.,;,(" fo, (/ I VI' 4+/ n..y ~r>f ~"'

-:f-/lf / f 3 dee//,"'-"

5,,,..,=-- V 0 11

1. ~~1/4,-.()_

Acl\no ,e gect by card ......................

CT 1 1993 "'""'"

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt-.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISSION Document Slallstlcs Postmark Dalt 1/J Copies Received __________

3

r"v .T NUMBER f-  ; UvED RULE PR 5.S

( 55 F£ o2.C/ -3~0

• 93 JUL 20 P2 :57

- t I IC Robin Nye 6861 Redman Rd.

Williamson N.Y. 14589 Dear Mr. / Mrs. Secretary I would like to comment on the proposed license exam rule change. I agree with the NRC to eliminate the requirement that the NRC must examine each licensed operator once every six years.

I believe that the best organization to examine licensed operators are at the facility where the operators work, ie the facility training staff. The exam process should be much smoother. Having the NRC examine the training dept's testing ability, rather than examining each individual license, will result in a better and more comprehensive exam.

ply Mr. Robin SRO Ginna OCT 1 1993 Acknowledged by card .......- .....................

OOC~(;:T UMBER Department ROPOSED RUL J!!I 5'5' 5 e of University of Illinois En.~meering at Urbana-Champaign Nuclear Engineering ( Sf P/l ,:J_J/3 1 (p ':)

214 Nuclear Engineering 217 333-2295 Laboratory , . . , ,, 217 333-2906 fa x 103 South G9b-'J~w!.Avenue - ,,

Urbana, IL 61 8ul'~2'984 er

• 93 JUL 20 P2 :57 July 16, 1993

,_ f ~ ,c~ _1;  ::: L ,,t<L i ;,Pocket Nos. 50-151/50-356 i;OCKL ! 1N~; *, -,; ! VH'f

~5E,-~., NL>i Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule Changing Requirement for NRC Administered Requalification Examination Federal Register/Vol. 58, No. 96/Thursday, May 20, 1993

Dear Sir:

It is the recommendation of this facility that the proposed rule concerning elimination of requiring the NRC to perform on-site six year requalification examinations be implemented.

The University of Illinois Nuclear Reactor Laboratory maintains an excellent requalification program that is set up to facilitate auditing for compliance. The reduced burden on the facility to send in annual operating examinations and written examinations would be approximately 10% - 25 % of what is currently required. This reduction in man-hours for compliance would be greatly appreciated as manpower could be utilized elsewhere.

The UIUC Requalification program provides for documented lectures and on-the-job training in order to show compliance with 10CFR55.59. The training materials at the UIUC Nuclear Reactor Laboratory are currently being overhauled to provide the information to a trainee along the lines of a systems approach to training.

Respectfully,

/f:4,I 2Jf1:;z Richard L. Holm Reactor Supervisor cc: file OCT 11993 Acknowledged by card .............................- **

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOt-.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISSION DoaJment Statistics Posbllark Date _--:..7,-,'j;

~

-1.-=5'-/-j..Lf. ...43_

/

Copies Received _ _- ' - - - - - -

Add'I Copies Reproduced .fi-_

Sp~ ial Distrilx.tt,on ;< lJ/4, !be I

JJ/ !?12/o,, i.aCl; f:-=

L (, liL!J U~NHC

• 93 JUL 20 P2 :55 July 14, 1993 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments, 10CFR55 Proposed Rule Change

Dear Sir,

Please accept these comments on the proposed rule change published in the Federal Register May 20, 1993.

1. Regarding whether the Staff should be allowed to administer requalification examinations at their discretion, or on a periodic basis, or only for cause:

a. The Staff has and will maintain sufficient experience in administering examinations via the initial license process. The requalification examination protocol contained in NU REG 1021 is not so different from the initial examination protocol that separate experience is required.

b. The Staff has the capability of controlling the quality of training programs or examinatior:is via routine inspection and enforcement.

d. Non-routine involvement of the Staff in a facility licensee's ongoing processes can be disruptive, and thus is a detriment to ongoing improvement by facility initiatives.

d. Therefore the Staff should not be allowed to administer requalification examinations except for cause.

2. The provision of 10CFR55.59(a)(2)(iii) that NRC may conduct requalification examinations in lieu of accepting the facility requalification examination requires a protection against subjecting individual licensed operators to excessively frequent examinations. The NRC intends to use this option if warranted after an on-site inspeption of a facility's requalification program. The possibility exists that such 1 1993 Acknowledged by card_o_cT_~ ..* ...

U.S. t-:t_1r .* F. ""'"<'"r:, *1.tSORY COMMISSIOf-t O'.)tJ<* .. I *  :  :;(RVICE SECTION

c. *., .. :, *;;-IS SECRETARY

• ,* 1r::.: -.c* ....dSS!ON

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 14, 1993 inspection will occur in close conjunction with a facility administered examination, and if the inspection results in determining (after the examination is administered) that the examination will not be accepted, the NRC will wish to re-examine the individuals, regardless of their individual results.

a. This form of "double jeopardy" can be avoided by either prohibiting , or requiring Commission approval for, the re-examination of any individual within a requalification cycle for which that individual has already passed the requalification examination.

b. Another possible protection against this form of "double jeopardy" is to establish a cutoff date for each examination to be administered by a facility, after which any determination of cause against the facility's requalification program or examination process will not affect the status of the individuals taking the examination. A date 30 days prior to the examination is suggested. This date is merely coincidental to the date for submitting examination materials to the Staff; there should be no need to rely on only the examination materials in determining cause for shutting down a facility's examination process.

c. It should be noted that as the Staff reduces the amount of time spent administering examinations, it will increase the amount of time spent inspecting programs. This increased inspection activity will enable the Staff and facility licensees to work together to avoid subjecting individuals to needless double jeopardy.

3. Regarding the burden on facility licensees of providing examination materials to the Regional Administrator:

a. It is not clear whether there is any intent that the examination materials shall be approved by the NRC prior to administering the examination. The proposed paragraph 55.59 (c) does not require the Staff complete a review, but the "invitation to comment" implies that there is such a requirement. There should not be a requirement to review the examination materials, but there should be a requirement that if the Staff is to take issue with the materials, then any issues raised must be timely and recovery must be possible.

b. It is suggested that if there is a requirement that the examination be approved by the Staff prior to administering the examination, then such approval should be automatic if the NRC does not act within a specified time in advance of the scheduled examination date. It is further suggested that if the Staff has been performing adequate inspection routinely, then it is reasonable to expect the Staff to deny such approval within 5 working days of receipt of the examination, such that the impact on facility personnel schedules is minimized. Again, there should also

Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 14, 1993 be a recovery protocol should the facility wish to amend an examination within the time available to maintain the schedule.

c. Any increase in burden on the facility licensee is partially offset by the reduction in burden associated with providing the NRG with examination preparation materials for the annual examinations under the current rule.

4. With the incorporation of some protection against excessively examining individuals, this rule will enhance the health and safety of the public by placing the responsibility for producing effective examinations more fully in the hands of the facility experts, by recognizing the vested interest facility licensees have in producing rigorous examinations, by focusing Staff resources more on requalification program quality, and by further stabilizing the expectations for individual performance within the examination process.

Sincerely, David M. Ziebell President, Region 5 Professional Reactor Operator Society 281 O El Rastro Lane Carlsbad, CA 92009

DOCV. *r MUM BER PR r--5 PROPOSED RULE..:...:.:- ~ - --

( sz rlf_ c:zq3~&)

Florida Power CORPORATION Cry*tal River Unit 3 Docket No. 50-302 JUL 2 0 1993 i '1

- - ~ DOCKETING & s..._

~ SERVICE BRANCH

, SECY-NRC July 19, 1993 7(/ ,!

NL93-0053

• Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Rule - Operator's Licenses 58 FR 29366 (May 20, 1993)

Request for Comments

Dear Mr. Chil k:

Florida Power Corporation (FPC) has reviewed NRC's proposed rule change, Federal Register Vol. 58, No. 96, dated May 20, 1993. FPC agrees with eliminating the requirement for each licensed operator to pass an NRC administered requalification examination during the operator's six year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. This will reduce the regulatory burden on the licensee by reducing the effort expended by the licensee to assist the NRC in developing and conducting NRC requalification examinations for licensed operators.

There is one concern with the proposed change. The proposed rule r~quires each facility to submit a copy of each comprehensive written exam or annual operating test 30 days in advance. FPC believes that this would create an undue burden on the utilities as well as the NRC. An NRC review (staff audit) of the examinations would also require reference material be submitted. This material could consist of as many as 30 notebooks of lesson plans, procedures, Technical CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR PLANT: Powerline Road

• P.O. Box 219

• Crystal River, Florida 34423-0219 * (904) 795-6486 A Florida Progress Company OCT 1 1993 Acknowledged by card .......""M..,u....._ ..

US. NU LE ~ ~c.:GULATC Y C0\-1 ISSIOl'v DO V.ET!:!S & $[ .;', I i: si::CTION OfflC::. OF THI:: vECf't T,\RY Cr 1Hc COJ1\t.:SK, ros!m><k ca:: 7/4V /f? - ja,,pfi--- 1!>>/'13 Cc1r "te *

....

• r.,

,:;,, *oJII

'-II _ _ ___ I ----

j Mdl Cc:*-.-.~-* o,. ,~,ct -~....,_- -"'?'-------=-

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 19, 1993 Page 2 Specifications, etc. FPC would have to provide the NRC with continual updates, putting a large burden on the utilities and the NRC. An alternative would be for the utilities to send the examination after their administration. These submittals in conjunction with onsite inspections by the NRC would accomplish the two important items targeted by this rule change; that is, maintaining high quality operator training programs, and reducing regulatory burden.

FPC supports the proposed change to remove the current requirement for an NRC administered examination as a condition for license renewal. We believe the performance-based inspection process will be an effective means for ensuring high quality programs.

FPC appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule change.

idell, D'rector Nuclear Operations Site Support JBC:ns

~~!;KET NUMBER PR ~

PROP ED RULE-'-=--~.....i,p. _,_;__

NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES C~ !IL/9':

1776 Eye Street, NW.

• Suite 300

• Washington. DC 20006-3706

~~~~v g1 c202) 872-1280 *93 JUL 19 p 4 :53 Thomas E. Tipton Vice President & Directa Operations. Management and Support Services DMsion July 19, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

REFERENCE:

Proposed Rule - Operators' Licenses 58 FR 29366 (May 20, 1993)

Request for Comments

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) 1, on behalf of the nuclear power industry, in response to the request of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for comments on the referenced NRC proposed rule. The proposed change would delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal.

The industry fully supports the proposed change to remove the current requirement for an NRC administered examination as a condition for license renewal. We believe the performance-based inspection process will be an effective means for ensuring high quality operator requalification programs. We agree that the proposed rule change will reduce regulatory burden on licensees and will improve operational safety at nuclear facilities.

1NUMARC is the organization of the nuclear power industry that is responsible for coordinating the combined efforts of all utilities licensed by the NRC to construct or operating nuclear power plants. and of other nuclear indusuy organizations. in all matters involving generic regulatory policy issues and on the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues affecting the nuclear power industry. Every utility responsible for constructing or operating a commercial nuclear power plant in the United States is a member ofNUMARC. In addition. NUMARC's members include major architect/engineering firms and all of the major nuclear steam supply system vendors.

JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card .................._.. _,..._

• *** * .

• t: ...,;{ ~EGULATORY COMMISSIOt-.

• ;1*:;.TI 'G & SERVICE SECTION ff ICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TH COMMISS N Oocumtnl SlalisbCS stmark Date /2a de, /4 ~

pies Received _ __/ _ _____

dcflCopiesReprod~ _ ;.; ______

"!,~J!~

_/j. t tnl>JDOO JZI Os P/2i!,,

1 l4-0--f<<

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 19, 1993 Page 2 The proposed rule change will also afford better operating crew continuity.

Because personnel changes occur over time, operating crews may be configured with individuals who have or have not had an NRC administered exam. In the past it has been a common practice to reconfigure crews to accommodate the NRC administered requalification exam by putting together individuals whose six years is about to end. Use of this practice to facilitate the conduct of requalification exams may not be in the best interest of crew coordination and teamwork.

There is one major concern with the proposed change. Under the current rule, each facility has submitted examinations only for the crew or crews being examined by the NRC. The proposed rule requires each facility to submit a copy of each comprehensive written exam or annual operating test 30 days in advance. We believe this will create an undue burden on the utilities as well as the NRC. Many utilities conduct up to 12 or more written exams as part of their annual exam process. This is a particular burden for utilities that employ a segmented examination approach, in which 20 or more written exams would be conducted over the course of the year. Submitting these exams 30 days in advance would represent a significant burden on the licensee and the NRC staff and would reduce flexibility in revising examination items as the need arises, and require continual updates of materials to the NRC. The flexibility currently afforded the licensees to change examination schedules, substitute examination materials, and administer post-remediation examinations could be lost to the required 30-day NRC review period.

This pre-exam submittal of examination material seems inconsistent with the intent of the proposed rule change and the change in role of the NRC staff. For this reason, as well as the burdens articulated above, we believe that this submittal should not be required. The exams are routinely filed and are available for inspection at any time. An alternative would be to submit selected examinations to the NRC after their administration. Inspections by the NRC and/or the selection of one of the alternatives would provide the NRC the opportunity to review and evaluate the industry's requalification examination programs.

We feel that additional clarification is needed on the following items to preclude the potential for misinterpretation and inconsistency:

• Paragraph 5 of the Discussion (page 29367, middle column) requires the NRC to review the examination for conformance to 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(i & ii). It does not, however, specify any criteria for conducting the review; we therefore suggest that standards be developed for this purpose.

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk July 19, 1993 Page 3

• It is unclear whether or not the NRC will routinely administer requalification examinations at each facility on some predetermined schedule. We suggest that NRC examinations be administered "for cause" only. This would reduce the regulatory burden on both the NRC and the utilities.

• In those instances where the NRC conducts for cause examinations, we suggest the NRC employ the practice of examining the operating crew that is scheduled for their requalification training week.

• We presume when the Part 55 change is ratified, the NRC will no longer maintain a national examination schedule (NES). We believe this to be a positive decision because without the NES, utilities could conduct annual examinations using their own schedule, therefore reducing the burden of coordinating within the NES.

• As a matter of good examination practice, utilities have exercised appropriate security measures to ensure that examination developers do not subsequently influence examinees in training courses.

Unnecessarily stringent procedures, which significantly reduced the effective strength of the training staffs, were utilized prior to the NRC-administered exams. Since all exams (under the proposed rule) would be conducted with routine utility security measures, we presume that the "security agreement", an artifact of the NRC examination administration process, will no longer be required.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed rule change. We believe it will improve the quality and efficiency of the requalification examination process. We welcome the opportunity to discuss our comments further with the appropriate NRC staff personnel.

Sincerely,

,___4)(/rl{u4! (

~~s E. Tipton TET/RCE:ldl

TRTR DOCKET NUMBER PR -r -

NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF PROPOSED RULE 5:;;; --

TEST, RESEARCH, AND TRAININ9,,_~ACTORS ( .5'i F/2. ,;ll3~0 Executive Committee

.) N\* '

William G. Vemetson, Chairman John A. Bernard, Mas.uchmetts Imtitute or Technology Director of Nuclear Facilities *19 David D. Clark, Cornell University University or Florida Training Reactor *93 JUL 19 P4

• Arthur G. Johmon, Oregon State University University or Florida Tawf"ik M. Raby, National Imtitute or Standarm and Technology Gainesville, Florida 32611 . ~ \ 'L:. , , "' 1 1 ' Junaid Razvi, General Atomics (904) 392-1408 FAX (904) 392-3380 iJL,I' ; 1 u *, '1i ' Vi LI Wade J. Richards, Department or Defeme/Cbainnan-Elect

• Sk , nV: T. Charles McKibben, University of Mmouri-Colmnbia Marcus H. Voth, Pennsylvania State University July 14, 199@ )

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Changes in 10 CFR Part 55 - Operator Licenses Gentlemen:

The National Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors (TRTR) supports the proposal of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to amend its regulations to delete the requirement that each licensed operator at power, test, and research reactors pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by NRC during the term of the operator's six-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. However, TRTR strongly opposes the other major aspect of the proposed change, namely the requirement that facility licensees submit copies of each annual comprehensive written examination or operating test used for operator requalification for review by the Commission at least 30 days prior to conducting the examination or the test.

The proposed rule is one of a series of policy changes that have been initiated following the 1987 rule that established the requirement under which all operators must be reexamined by NRC prior to license renewal. TRTR has always maintained that this requirement was both unnecessary and wasteful of resources, It is therefore gratifying that the NRC has, as noted in the supplemental information contained in the federal register notice, reached the same conclusion. The original system under which licensees were responsible for preparing and implementing requalification programs in their entirety worked satisfactorily for decades . NRC monitored these programs by examining requalification records, including written examinations and/or operational tests, during routine inspections . The approach was inexpensive and, as noted by NRC, it was also effective in terms of training. Specifically, we quote from the register notice:

"Following the 1987 amendment to part 55, the NRC began conducting operator requalification examinations for the purpose of license renewal. As a result of conducting these examinations, the NRC determined that nearly all facility requalification programs met the Commission's expectations and that the NRC examiners were largely duplicating tasks that were already required of, and routinely performed by, the facility licensees . "

Given the above, TRTR urges that NRC reestablish their original (prior to 1987) p~licy and in particular that NRC not impose a requirement that annual examinations and/or operating *tests be submitted thirty days in advance for NRC review. Specific reasons for TRTR opposition to this aspect of the rule are as follows:

JUL 3 o 1993 Acknowledged by card ........................._

.I U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO~

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARV OF THE COMMtSSION DoQllnent Staitsb Postmark Da 111/t; / z1?

I I Copes Receiwd _ _ __,. I _ __

~~ Ld~~8&

• i ..

W 1)7

(1) There is no need for the submission of written examinations and/or operating tests to NRC for review. The record, as evaluated by NRC, shows most requalification programs have "met the Commission's expectations." Moreover, the NRC already has available to it the means to inspect requalification programs.

(2) The submission of exams and/or tests may not be practical for some TRTR member facilities.

Some non-power reactors do give annual or biennial written and operational examinations.

However, others perform operational evaluations throughout the year. It would be impractical for those that use the latter approach to comply with the rule.

(3) The 30-day advance submittal implies that NRC will review and, on occasion, request modifications of facility-proposed exams and/or tests. This will make requalifications a rather cumbersome process.

(4) Finally, in recent years the regulatory burden on NPRs has increased substantially, to the point where a major portion of a facility's resources is devoted to meeting regulatory requirements that are clearly excessive, unnecessary, and also inconsistent with the mandate of minimum regulations for NPRs. There is no doubt that the requalification examination rule falls in this category.

In summary, the National Organization of Test, Research, and Training Reactors urges NRC to adopt a rule which deletes the present requirement for NRC-administered requalification examinations (Section 55.57(b)(2)(iv)) and which authorizes such examinations for cause only.

As a further qualification of responses to this issue, it should be noted that the Federal Register notice requesting comments on this change was not sent to the NPR community as is usually done. While not required, such a mailing is especially important because most NPR facilities cannot afford to subscribe to a service that reviews the Federal Register. When this situation was recognized in early July, we tried to notify all NPR facilities of the FR notice on our own. However, because of other administrative efforts, there may be fewer comments than normally expected. As a result we would request, whenever feasible, that all NPR facilities receive copies of future Federal Register notices affecting them.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, WGV/cb William G. Vernetson Chairman cc: Executive Committee

DOCKET NUMBER PR ~

PROPOSED RULE___,,;;,.;._v_ 0 _ _

ENTERGY ( S'8 'F~ o2-9.3~6) Entergy Operations, Inc.

PC x ~ 1 :9':-

'v1~ 19286 19('":,

001 84 John R. McGaha

• 93 JUL 19 P4 :18

_,ff !t,' ._,F c; iJ1*E T/\t '/

tJOCl,i i 1MG ', '-f 1, ViU GFJ\Nl)-i July 6, 1993 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk "

Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments Regarding Proposed Rule Change - 10 CFR Part 55, Operators' Licenses CNRO - 93/00024

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Entergy Operations, Inc. has reviewed the proposed rule change published in the

• Federal Register on May 20, 1993 (58 FR 29366). This proposed change to 10 CFR Part 55 would primarily change the requirements for licensed operator requalification examinations. We wish to submit the following on behalf of Arkansas Nuclear One Units 1 & 2, Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, and Waterford 3 Steam Electric Station.

The proposed changes would eliminate NRC requalification examinations which are redundant to the requalification examinations already required to be conducted by facility licensees. This is a very positive step in reducing unnecessary regulatory requirements, especially those which, as discussed in the Federal Register Notice, place a burden upon both licensee and NRC resources. Therefore, we endorse the proposed change to delete 10 CFR 55.57(b)(iv), as well as the clarification achieved by the proposed new 10 CFR 55.2(c).

In regard to the proposed new requirement in 10 CFR 55.59(c), we respectfully request that the Commission consider an alternative approach which would achieve the same result with a reduced burden upon facility licensees. The proposed 10 CFR 55.59(c) would require facility licensees to "submit a copy of each comprehensive requalification written examination or annual operating test.. . at least 30 days prior to conducting such examination or test." This period of time is extremely busy for a facility licensee's training staff. We would offer that the submittal of only those written JUL aO 1993 Acknowledged by card .........- -..- ....--..

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOI\

OOCKETING l SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SEC°F1ET AR¥ OF THE COMMISSION DoaJment Smtistics Postmark Da'9 7/;.!;)f '?J Copes AeoeiYed / /

Add'I Copies Reprod~ - ---~.,........-

S . tlOO _.-L,,,::;L..Ji,::::=,;._~.tlA-~

Comments Regarding Proposed Rule Change - 10 CFR Part 55, Operators' Licenses July 6, 1993 CNRO-93/00024 Page 2 of 2 examinations or annual operating tests needed to support an NRC inspection be required in advance of the inspection. Other examinations or tests would be available onsite for inspection, or could be submitted upon NRC request. If the periodic submittal of tests or examinations is truly necessary, another alternative to reduce facility licensee burden would be to require their submittal to the NRC once per refueling cycle.

We appreciate this opportunity to express our views on the proposed changes to 10 CFR Part 55 and the Commission's consideration of the our comments.

Sincerely,

\Rf1\-~

()JRM/hek cc: Mr. T. W. Alexion Mr. P. W. O'Connor Mr. R. P. Barkhurst Mr. N. S. Reynolds Mr. R. H. Bernhard Mr. R. L. Simard Mr. R. B. Bevan, Jr. Ms. L. J. Smith Mr. J. L. Blount Mr. D. L. Wigginton Mr. S. D. Ebneter Mr. J. W. Yelverton Mr. E. J. Ford Central File (GGNS)

Mr. C. R. Hutchinson DCC (ANO)

Mr. H. W. Keiser Records Center (WF3)

Mr. R. B. McGehee Corporate File [ 3]

Mr. J. L. Milhoan

Georgia Power Company 40 Inverness Center Parkway Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone 205 877-7122 0)

C. K. McCoy *93 JUL 19 P4 :18 Georgia Power

,\

Vice President, Nuclear the southern electric system 1J~,9~

Vogtle Project July 16 ~ S*

Ddl I t i 1 1'1

~ ~<! ~ L 1 Docket Nos. 50-321 50-424 HL- 3396 50-366 50- 425 LCV-0077 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Proposed Rule "Operators' Licenses" (58 Federal Register 29366 of May 20, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chil k:

Georgia Power Company has reviewed the proposed rule "Operators' Licenses," published in the Federal Register on May 20, 1993. In accordance with the request for comments, Georgia Power Company is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments which are to be provided to the NRC.

Should you have any questions, please adv ise.

Respectfully submitted, CKM/JDK Acknowledged by card ..~:_:~,!:~~ ,. . .

."* , J, : 1..t:. R RE.GUlATORV COMMISSIOt-.

DOlir<ET G & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETAR\'

OF THE CO MISSION

{)oCUfflif\l StaasticS ros1ma11< oa _

~

7//

s~ooiYe<J, _ __..L- - - -

b/q 3 s~ i),S"I ~

Add'I Copes Reprodueed Yf.

R 1() - p.-~-v?-~-~

. 11< *l:!dJ; /¥/,Z ~,~- - -

Georgia Power U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 cc: Georgia Power Company J. T. Beckham, Vice President, Plant Hatch J. B. Beasley, General Manager - Vogtle Electric Generating Plant H. L. Sumner, Jr., General Manager - Plant Hatch

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC K. N. Jabbour, Licensing Project Manager - Hatch D. s. Hood, Licensing Project Manager - Vogtle

u. s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Region II

s. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator L. D. Wert, Senior Resident Inspector - Hatch B. R. Bonser, Senior Resident Inspector - Vogtle HL-3396 LCV-0077 700775

PROFESSIONAL REACTOR DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE

{s Pc ~t/~(;(,,

,n

...,-..,~~ i Ll]

rs-OPERATOR U~Hi C July 17, 1993 SOCIETY

'93 JUL 19 PA :17 @

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed rule - Operator Licensing 59 FR 29368

Dear Mr. Chilk,

The professional Reactor Operator Society supports the proposed rule change to remove the requirement of the Nuclear Regulatory commission's direct evaluation of each Operator as a condition of Reactor Operator or Senior Reactor Operator License renewal. Our Society believes the NRC inspections of Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator training programs will ensure the required high level of Operator*quality is maintained.

The licensed individual Operator has in recent years become increasingly aware of the need for their input into the training they receive, and have for the most part taken a very active role in designing, implementing, and evaluating that training. Many stations have adopted some form of pear to peer evaluation and feedback, a process which has greatly enhanced both team and individual performance. Industry events and plant specific items are continually brought to participative classrooms. A high level of utility management participation and oversight is evident to further stress the importance of the training and maintenance of abilities to the individual Operator. The NRC's periodic observation of the aforementioned factors, and the ability to assess the quality of the academic programs, should provide the assurance that the public safety will be maintained.

In supporting the overall change, we also request the NRC' s examination review process be further refined. It is our belief that with the NRC's monitoring of a station's training programs, an entire year (annuai training cycle?) should be considered, rather than placing undue reliance on a single annual examination. Because of mandated last minute changes to an annual examination, the stress level of the training staff can be elevated to the point of reflecting badly on the examination process itself. From our point of view, most requested changes are without basis, perhaps even whimsical.

Areas of dispute should instead be resolved for inclusion in the training cycle following the examination, thereby allowing proper preparation of the material.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. I make this submittal on behalf of the Society's 853 members.

Sincerely, Pl(J .

Carl M. Gray, ;,2.dent P.O. Box 181, Mishicot, WI 54228-0181 (414) 755-2725 Acknowledged by card ....~~:...~.~!~~!-.

U.S. NUCLEAR AEGULAlORY COMMISSIOt-.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARV OF THE COMMISSION Doa.flMJf1t Statisb Postmarll oa* ~

Coples Recefwd_ _...,/______

. )JW z,!;$,3 Adcfl CoJjes ~ _ 4 _____

! ia1,pistrit>ut1onJ<ib,;5 PIJ£,,

-4!_ rw ) ~

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE~_o"""';_

PR rc:-

csg r,e_ J934't)

North Carolina State University. , . , r,.. , i , *...

L.

U) Nl{C Nuclear Reactor Program Department of Nuclear Engineering

• 93 JUL 19 P4 :04 Box 7909 Raleigh, NC 27695-7909 (919) 515-2321 FAX (919) 515-5115 Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATIN: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Changes in 10 CFR 55 - Operator Licenses

Dear Sir:

Having been a reactor operator and a senior operator during the past twenty years at a university research reactor, I have been involved with all aspects of licensing, examinations, and renewals and I am fully aware of the necessity to maintain the highest level of operator competence. I support the proposal that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) amend its regulations to delete the requirement that each licensed operator at power, test, and research reactors pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's six-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. I also request that the NRC not require the licensee to submit copies of the annual comprehensive written exam or operating test used for operator requalification to the Commission thirty days in advance of the test date. This would duplicate for the most part what compliance inspections have been doing sucessfully for many years. Very likely each facility will have more than one inspection over a given six-year cycle. Any omissions or inadequacies in a requalification program that would compromise an operator's competence would be noted and corrected prior to license renewal. I believe the time and money required for the Commission to perform an essentially duplicate function cannot be justified.

Therefore, I urge the NRC to adopt a rule which would delete the present requirement for NRC administered requalification examinations (10 CFR 55.57(b)(2)(iv)).

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

,;;*L Stephen J. Bilyj

2

1.,

I JUL 3 o 1993-_,_

Acknowledged by card ......... - .........._ _.

North Carolina State University is a land-grant university and a constituent institution of The University of North Carolina .

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSJOI'-.

. DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SEC.RETARV Of THE COMMISSION Oowm8nt Slidtstics Postmart( Da'9 1j( / /tj'3 Coiies Aeoelved /

A~1Co?eSR~--- £- - -

S~~ ~ k (JiC Pifo

~t~bf;:Ulr

RADIATION CENTER DOCKET NUMBER PR S5' PROPOSED RULE

( st pl!., .::293&~

@)

• 93 JUL 19 P4 :Q3 July 15, 1993 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Changes in NRC Regulations Contained in 10 CFR Part OREGON 55, Operators' Licenses STATF

Dear Sir:

NI\ FR)ITY Oregon State University would like to submit the following comments regarding the U.S. Nuclear Regulation Commission's (NRC) proposal to change Radiation Center AIOO certain regulatory requirements contained in 10 CFR 55 which deal w ith Corvallis, Oregon operators' licenses. In particular, we would first like to express our strong 97331

• 5903 support for the Commission's proposal to amend Part 55 regulations to delete the requirement that, as a prerequisite for license renewal , each licensed operator at power, test, and research reactors must pass a comprehensive written requalification examination and an operating test administered by the NRC during the term of the operator's six year license .

As a second item, we would like to point out that we are having difficulty w ith the Commission's proposed requirement involving submission of copies to the NRC of the annual operating test or comprehensive written examinations used for operator requalification. More specifically, we find the current wording and the intent of the requirement to be confusing , and we are hard pressed to identify the benefits (to the NRC or to the licensee) which would accompany the implementation of this new requirement. Therefore, we would like to go on record as opposing this requirement for the following reasons :

1) The requirement to submit copies of each annual operating test or comprehensive written examination used for operator requalification for NRC review at least 30 days prior to giving the test or examination does not take Telephone 503*737*2341 into consideration the fact that NRC-approved requalification plans may not require examination frequencies of this type . For example, the Oregon State Fax TRIGA Reactor (OSTR) requalification plan does not require a single 503

• 737* 0480 comprehensive written examination. Instead , our requalification tra ining is conducted over a two-year cycle and includes four specific written examinations (on specific topics) spread over a two or three month period each year . Under the proposed rule it would seem that each year we would be required to submit each of the four examinati ons 30 days before they are JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., * .,,,,, , n

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMiSSIOti DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECAETARV Of THE COMMISSION Posbnark Date Copies Received______/____

3 Document Slatlstics 1/40 __,_ _ __

Add'I Copies Reprodu(jed '--,,,----;,,~ ~ -

~ otsmootion K 105 fJ/e; 71.PaJL i ~k

Secretary USNRC July 15, 1993 given, which would clearly complicate and almost certainly delay an otherwise manageable requalification process. Furthermore, from the proposed rule it is unclear exactly what magnitude of time delays might be encountered due to NRC reviews or audits of the examinations or due to subsequent NRC suggested or required changes to the exams.

However, I feel that it is fair to say that most NRC licensees have not regularly experienced a 30-day turnaround on anything but the most urgent of licensing matters. This situation is understandable, but would significantly interfere with operator requalification schedules if allowed to become a part of this Commission-required program.

2) As an alternative to the requirement that written requalification examinations be submitted, the proposed rule appears to offer the option of submitting only a copy of the annual operating test, which by any measure is much briefer, and due to its objectives is quite a bit different in format than the individual written examinations which focus on specific technical and/or administrative topics. At the OSTR, the annual operating test consists of a series of reactor manipulations required in the NRC's regulations and does not change significantly from year to year. This apparent option is confusing to us!

• 3) As a result of the NRC's experiences in administering requalification examinations, including the 11 research and test reactor facilities examined, it appears that existing licensee requalification programs are meeting the Commission's objectives. Furthermore, the Commission has itself acknowledged that it could more effectively allocate its resources by performing on-site inspections of facility requalification programs (including the requalification examinations) which is exactly what the nonpower reactor community was accust omed to prior to the 1987 revisions to 10 CFR 55. In view of the experience the Commission has already gained since 1987, it does not seem to us that there is anything more to be gained by submitting to the NRC copies of written examinations and/or operating tests 30 days before t hey are administered by the licensee . However, there is potentially much to be lost due to requalification delays and through added administrative costs to the Commission and to the licensees .

• Therefore. in closing, we would like to state our support for the Commission's proposal to adopt a rule which deletes the present requirement for NRC administered requalification examinations, and at the same time we would like to request that the Commission eliminate their proposal relating to the submission of written requalification examinations and operating tests.

We appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments and thank you for your consideration of our viewpoint.

Director dd\agj\nrc\operlic. let cc: A . Adams. Project Manager, Non-Power Reactors T . V. Anderson , Reactor Supervisor S. E. Binney, Chairman, ROC B. Dodd, Reactor Administrator A. D. Hall , Senior Reactor Operator J . Higginbotham , Sr. Health Physicist D. Stewart-Smith, Oregon Dept. of Energy William G. Vernetson, Chairman, TRTR

Stephen B. Bram Vice President DOCKET NUMBER PR 55 PROPOSED RULE Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

( 59 r::-IL 213 ~ b 0 July 19, 1993 Indian Point Station Broadway & Bleakley Avenue Buchanan, NY 10511 Telephone (914) 737-8116 Re: Indian Point Unit No. 2 Docket No. 50-247 "93 19 JUL if A10 :12 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk tu:*1c u*JCK w; 7 Secretary V, h/.;l US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking - Operators' Licenses: 10 CFR Part 55, 58 FR 29366 (May 20, 1993)

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York Inc., as owner and operator of Indian Point Unit No. 2, welcomes this opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 55, Operators' Licenses. The proposed rule change would delete the requirement that the NRC administer a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test for each licensed operator during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal.

Consolidated Edison fully supports the Commission's proposal to terminate the NRC administered examination as a condition for license renewal under 10 CFR Part 55. Although the NRC's involvement has had a positive impact on the content and conduct of license requalification, utilities have proven their ability to develop and administer requalification exams that meet the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59 (A) (2) (i&ii).

We also agree that the proposed rule change will serve dual purposes: reducing the regulatory burden on licensees and improving operational safety at nuclear facilities. For example, increased operating crew continuity, afforded by this rule change, will improve operational safety. In the past, to accommodate the NRC administered requalification exam, operating crews were reconfigured by putting together individuals whose six years were about to end. This practice, performed only to facilitate the conduct of requalification exams, was not in the best interest of crew coordination and teamwork.

JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card ..................._.. __"

• I

., I I

U.S. NUCL c . REGULATORY COM ISSIO~

DOCl<i:Tl1 'G & SERVICE SECTION OFFl\.,E OF THE sr.:"R~"fARY C;- ThE CCM, S-,nN Dccument Statiti :::;

Postmark D:i:~ 7 /421/ t7 1

3 Copies Rc:-d ed / ,

Add'I Copc-:s neprou ced -~ ..__---.r"T"'=-

Spe. pj)/2}

One issue of concern with the proposed rule change is the requirement that licensees submit exams to the NRC 30 days prior to their administration. This new requirement would result in an additional administrative burden on the utilities, both in developing the exams within the required lead time as well as sending multiple weeks worth of exams to the NRC. Furthermore, this approach raises the following questions:

o Does the NRC retain approval authority over utility examinations?

o Can the NRC change utility examinations?

o Can the utility change examinations after submittal?

In addition, an NRC staff audit of the examinations will require reference material consisting of as many as 30 to 40 notebooks of lesson plans, procedures, Technical Specifications, etc. Utilities would have to provide the NRC staff with updates of this material for each exam. This would place a large burden on the utilities, as well as the NRC staff, and therefore seems inconsistent with the intent of the proposed rule change.

Alternatives to this approach would be:

o Utilities submit their completed exam banks to the NRC every two years. This would allow the NRC to evaluate the exam banks for adequacy.

o Utilities submit one exam to the NRC for review at the end of each requalification program as a sample. The sample would demonstrate the depth and breadth that all requalification exams exhibit.

This approach is no different than the present, where the NRC is involved only in reviewing the exam they administer. Presently, this is only required every two years.

o Utilities submit exams to the NRC after they have been administered. This would provide the NRC with the opportunity to audit the material for conformance to 10 CFR 55.59 (a) (2) (i&ii).

Any of these approaches would maintain the existing high quality of operator training programs while significantly reducing the burden on the utilities and the NRC staff. In conjunction with the NRC's onsite inspections, they would accomplish the important items targeted by the rule change.

However, the procedural requirements set forth in the proposed notice of rulemaking would substantially burden licensees and remove many of the efficiencies which form the primary incentive for the rule change, without providing commensurate further assurance that requalification exams are being administered appropriately.

Very truly yours,

• cc: Document Control Desk US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator - Region I US Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Francis J. Williams, Jr., Project Manager Project Directorate I-1 Division of Reactor Projects I/II US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14B-2 Washington, DC 20555 Senior Resident Inspector US Nuclear Regulatory Commission PO Box 38 Buchanan, NY 10511

NISr

• 93 JUL 19 P3 :57 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission )f' ! .

t(Jl..i'\

Washington, DC 20555 t,NC ,

Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Changes to 10 CFR Part 55 The National Institute of Standards and Technology is opposed to the proposed change to 10 CFR-55 especially its application to Test and Research Reactors (NPR' s). The existing rule should simply be deleted without imposing other requirements. There has never been any demonstrated need or justification for the blanket application to NPR's of the 1987 rule change that required NRC administered requalification examinations. In fact the regulatory analysis clearly stated that the rule would not apply to NPR's.

The experience at NIST and at other NPR's to date is that the rule imposed an undue burden on the limited resources of NPR' s without clear benefits. The proposed current change of requiring facilities to submit all examinations to the NRC at least 30 days in advance and allowing the NRC staff to review, modify, oversee or even administer these examinations is not only counterproductive but will further deplete limited resources, again without clear benefits. These resources could be put to better use in improving facility and operator performance.

The net effect of the proposed change on NIST is not less work by management and staff but more work. The process that used to be carried out once every six years may have to be carried out every other year or every year or even several times a year. For example, NIST and many other NPR facilities perform operation evaluation throughout the year. This allows observations of the actual, rather than simulated, performance of such tasks as startup, shutdown, refueling, surveillance tests and emergency exercises, as they occur or come due.

The administration of this type of operations evaluation is far more comprehensive, and relevant than a single examination and would detect weaknesses that otherwise would go unnoticed. NIST is absolutely committed to maintaining the highest level of competence among its operators. NIST believes that both the existing rule and the proposed rule change will not realistically contribute to achieving this objective.

NIST believes it is important to maintain NRC staff competence in relation to NPR operator licensing. This can be best accomplished by maintaining a nucleus of specialized qualified personnel either as part of or in conjunction with the Non-Power Reactor Directorate and through specialized training and administration of initial examinations, which occur rather frequently. NIST believes that both the JUL 3 O1993 Acknowledged by card .............................MUI

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIO~

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISSION Document Slatistics Postmark Date  ?/2:'S-If 3

I Copies Received L Add'I Copies Rep~ -* - --,""""""""~

Sp~:1itxJ.100 fil/ )Sl p~

s:LJJ_f!~ J 0<'J1/21j< <

existing rule and the proposed change are unnecessary and wasteful of both NRC and licensee resources. Accordingly NIST proposes the following alternatives in order of preference:

l. Delete the present requirement for NRC administered requalification examinations (Section 55.57 Paragraph (b)(2)(iv)) and conduct such examinations for cause only. This is clearly the logical and most productive approach.

2. Delete the present requirement for NRC administered requalification examinations and conduct requalification examinations prior to license renewal on a case by case basis depending on facility and operator performance as well as for cause.

3. Delete the present requirement for NRC administered requalification examinations. Add the requirement that facility licensees submit copies of their tests in advance to the NRC once every six years prior to license renewal.

4. As a minimum, keep the present requirement for NRC administered requalification examinations and add the proposed change as an alternate choice in lieu thereof. Facility licensees then would have the option of choosing either the NRC administered examinations or submitting copies of their tests in advance to the NRC.

NIST considers the last three suggestions listed undesirable; they are included only because the existing rule and the proposed change are even more undesirable.

In summary, NIST strongly believes that the proposed change will do more harm and little good and should not be adopted unless modified as indicated above.

ichael Rowe ief, Reactor Radiation Division

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING ~

&APPLIED SCIENCE July 15, 1993 NUCLEAR REACTOR FACILIIY

• 93 JUL 19 P3 :54 Department of Mechanical, Aerospace & Nuclear Engineering Secretary Attention: Docketing and se1c,r..iiP:~ .J3rf\~9l).tu , University of Virginia U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com~-M~il;t~qp.; '< 0

, ,r r Charlottesville, VA 22903-2442 Washington, DC l r ... t,t,** 804-982-5440 FAX: 804-982-5473 20555

Subject:

Proposed rule, Operators' Licenses, 10 CFR Part 55 Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 96 Thursday, May 20, 1993

Dear Sirs:

I write as a representative of a university operated research reactor to express opinions in favor of the proposed rule. The new rulemaking would delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal.

Instead, a new requirement would exist for facility licensees to submit copies of each annual operating test or comprehensive written examination for Commission review at least 30 days prior to the examination or the test date.

Our facility participated in the NRC' s retesting program. All three of the operators tested passed the exam. Similarly, operators tested at other research reactors passed their tests.

These results indicate that research reactor operators retain their license-required qualifications based on existing facility retraining programs and licensee self-administered annual re-examinations.

Weighing the cost of NRC administered re-examinations (in addition to that administered by the facility) against alternatives, it is our opinion that the present inflexible 6-year re-examination schedule is not warranted. The NRC should be able to assess the effectiveness of each facility's training program during NRC operator license examinations administered to proposed new operators, as well as in the course of requalification program inspections and from the compliance history of individual facilities and operators.

The burden on research reactor licensees was unnecessarily increased by the current practice of NRC re-examinations. The licensee has to devote considerable personnel time to assist the NRC in preparing, scheduling and administering the exams. Research reactor staffs are small (6 operators at our facility, even fewer at many others), so the effort by both the NRC and the licensee is great in relation to the number of people re-tested (sometimes, as few a one). Thus, the licensee effort would be better directed JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card .............- ..........:::.:

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULAfORY COMMISSIO't--.

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SEC.RETARY OF THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmartt Dam @ PX 7/; (p /rl3 Coples Received / r Addi Cor,e> Re~

~*~ ~

(Proposed Operator Examination Rule, cont., page 2) toward improving the requalification program itself. The proposed new requirement for the licensee to submit the facility's requalification test or exam to prior NRC review is not burdensome, by comparison.

Under the proposed rule, the NRC will be able to re-test operators for cause. This provision provides the NRC with sufficient discretion to determine on a case by case basis where attention should be focused. Casual discussion with our operators indicates that they understand and agree with the NRC's objectives and are not opposed to the concept of re-examination for cause.

r, Director

u. Virginia Reactor Facility

Southern Nuclear Operating Company Post Office Box 1295 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Telephone (205) 868-5086 J . D. Woodard Executive Vice President July 16, 1993 ** ~~:l ' C ,h 1,,,

(:i1;1..,i-l I *

• I VI( .

~ f\;- I vi, Docket Nos. 50-348 50-364 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Docketing and Service Branch Comments on Proposed Rule "Operators' Licenses" (58 Federal Register 29366 of May 20, 1993)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

Southern Nuclear Operating Company has reviewed the proposed rule "Operators' Licenses," published in the Federal Register on May 20, 1993 .

In accordance with the request for comments, Southern Nuclear Operating Company is in total agreement with the NUMARC comments which are to be provided to the NRC.

Should you have any questions, please advise.

Respectfully submitted, JDW/JDK JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card ..................................

~}1!-Sfatfgti6&

9Ate/t3

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 cc: Southern Nuclear Operating Company R. D. Hill, Plant Manager U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. D. C.

T. A. Reed, Licensing Project Manager, NRR U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Region II S. D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator G. F. Maxwell, Senior Resident Inspector

Ql 4,1 Nuclear Reactor Facility I UJJ Ill\_

Iii WORCESTER P OLYTECHNIC I NSTITUTE *93 JUL 16 P4 :44 100 Institute Road Worcester, MA 01609-2280 (508) 831-5276 (508) 831-5236 FAX (508) 831-5680 July 13, 1993 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Documentation and Service Branch Re: 10 CFR Part 55 Operator Licenses Proposed Rule FR Vol. 58, No. 96 Thursday, May 20, 1993

Dear Secretary:

similar to the many smaller university based non-power reactors, the teaching and training reactor at Worcester Polytechnic Institute has historically had an administrative and licensed operating full time staff of one and a licensed operating part-time staff varying from three to five individuals. In addition, one full time faculty member of the Nuclear Engineering Program not

• employed at the reactor has also maintained an operating license.

With such a small staff and only one individual having ever required the six year NRC administered comprehensive requalification examination, we support and encourage the proposed change to delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass the aforementioned examination every six years.

However, the proposal requiring facility licensees to submit to NRC copies of each annual operating test or comprehensive written examination used in requalification 30 days prior to conducting the examinations adds a further regulatory burden to the small staffs of non-power reactors which already devote significant, and in the case of WPI, close to a majority of staff time meeting regulatory compliance. This is obviously antithetic to Section 104 C of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which directs the Commission 11 * *

• to impose only such minimum amount of regulation of the licensee ...

to protect the health and safety of the public *.. "

Given the scope of most university based non-power reactor programs, "the health and safety of the public" in relation to operator requalification was being met prior to the 1987 amendment to 10 CFR Part 55 by having requalification examinations reviewed as part of routine and non-routine inspections of non-power reactor

• JUL 3 o 1993 Acknowledged by card .......... --............... ..

U.S. N' 1* .1r.:GULATORV COMMISSIOt-.

D, ~.'ETH~" & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE CO MISS N Dorument Slatistics Postmark Date _ .....l_f; q_:3_ __

...,./_(_3~/ ......

~~s~oo"'9d_ _ _=1_ _ __

Add'I Copies ~ ~ '----....-------

S Jf?

NRC 7/13/93 Page 2 of 2 licensees' operator requalification programs. To reduce the regulatory burden of non-power reactor licensees and reduce the burden and subsequent costs to the NRC, a return to the successful previous system of licensee written, administered, and recorded requalification examinations would be just as a effective while being much more efficient.

Sincerely,

• ~#/~

., lo M. Bobek, Director

DOCKET NUMBEA Nuclear Reactor Laboi\SQB ED RULE PR &:::

The University of Michigan ( $"g FR  :'29:3to6)

Ford Nuclear Reactor Phoenix Memorial Laboratory 2301 Bonisteel Boulevard Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2100

( 313) 764-6220

• 93 ~~ l;:;:~Li@

July 9, 1993 Docket 50-2 License R-28 Secretary l'.S. ~uclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

10 CFR 55 Operator Requalification Licensing Examinations Gentlemen:

These comments are in response to the proposed changes to 10 CFR 55 that would eliminate NRC administered requalification examinat i ons for licensed reactor operators at research reactors.

The Ford Nuclear Reactor has undergone two ~RC administered requalification examinations involving five licensed se11ior reactor operators. In addition, the manager of the Ford I\uclear Reactor has prepared and administered a requalification examination for the operators of the Doh* Chemical Compan:*

TRIGA Reactor.

We support elimination of the NRC administered examination. ~e feel that the biennial, facility prepared and administered examinations which are part of the facility requalification program are thorough and comprehensive. The ~RC administer*ed requalification experience at the Ford Nuclear Reactor and the Dow TRIGA Reactor has shown that licensed operators maintain a high level of both theoretical and practical knowledge.

~e also feel that submittal of our biennial written examinations for review by the NRC is an unnecessary and potentially expensive process, since a fee will probably be charged for the review. A~

in the past, the requalification program review can be part of routine inspections or initial operator* license examinations which we have on an almost annual basis. Any weaknesses can be discussed and rectified at that time.

Sincerely, fl.>,~/.~

Reed R. Burn

'.vfanager JUL .3 0-1993 Acknowledged by card ..........._......... ,...........

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COM~.0 """tOt-.

DOCKETING & SEAVIC~ SECTi01~

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMI SION Doctmlnt Slalsdcs Postmark Oc>.te 1/ /;;L / 1?

ii Cop; *.- :-.,,,t .-i*d-- -~- - - - -

DOCKET NUMBER_.l!R S5

+

PROPOSED RULE GENERAL ATOMICS {_~g ~~ c!-q3~(j TRIGA Reactors Facility (6 19) 455-3277 Linear Accelerator Facility (619) 455-4336

. v l"ll It. FAX : (6 191 455-3865

'J ,NhL July 14, 1993 *93 JUL l 5 P4 :18 (jj)

,.r * !r -~ , 1,-4 ~

>IL,ht. *~ J Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Amendment of 10CFR55 to delete NRC conducted examination as prerequisite for operator license renewal.

Reference:

58 Federal Register 29466 (May 20, 1993)

Gentlemen:

The referenced federal register notice published the proposed rule amending 10CFR55 to delete the requirement of NRC conducted written and operating examinations as a prerequisite for license renewal. Comments on the proposed rule have been solicited, including the applicability of the proposed amendments to research and test reactor facilities as well as alternatives to the proposed rulemaking.

General Atomics (GA), which operates two research and test reactors, strongly supports the part of the proposed rule that would delete the requirement that each licensed operator be subjected to a comprehensive written and operational test conducted by the NRC during the six-year term of the license. However, GA strongly opposes the second major component of the proposed rule, which would significantly increase the regulatory burden on facility licensees, namely the requirement that facility licensees submit copies of each and every requalification examination - written and operating - for review to the Commission at least 30 days prior to conducting such examinations. This would be an especially unnecessary hardship on the smaller non-power reactors operating with small staffs and under tight budget constraints.

In opposing the requirement, we submit the following:

• For GA and similar non-power reactor (NPR) facilities, the net effect of requiring facilities to submit all examinations to NRC staff 30 days in advance for review can only be counterproductive, depleting limited resources without a clear benefit in operator performance or operational safety. Equal benefits with no increase in regulatory burden can be realized by using the mechanism of on-site inspections of requalification programs, and the authority to administer exams for cause, that is already available to the NRC through the regulations.

JUL a O 1993 Acknowledged by card .. --"_,,._,::::-,;

3550 GENERAL ATOMICS COURT, SAN DIEGO, CA 92121-1194 PO BOX 85608, SAN DIEGO, CA 92186-9784 (619) 455-3000

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS!Ofv OOCKETtNG l SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARV Of THE COMMISSION Document Stalistics mar1t Date _ _,_,

7 .__/;...:-,

0 1/.__.,_.

f ~ - -

jes Received.__ -'-t_-'-/_' ...,,.__ __

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 14, 1993 Page 2

• The requirement for submittal of annual operating tests for review is further complicated by the fact that at many NPR facilities including GA, evaluation of operational performance is performed on a continuing basis, rather than through an annual operating test. This evaluation is conducted through the operator's participation in emergency retraining, actual performance of startups, fuel handling, and performance of periodic surveillance activities. We believe that such an evaluation is far more effective for NPRs in detecting deficiencies and taking remedial action, than the conduct of annual operating tests. The latter could only be effectively carried out with simulators, which are impractical for NPR facilities. GA submits that our ongoing requalification program maintains the highest level of competence in our operational staff and the proposed rule change will add nothing towards continued maintenance of this performance level.

Requalification examinations may be administered to licensed operators at different times throughout the year, requiring the process of submitting exams for NRC review to be carried out several times a year.

GA has continually maintained throughout the course of the six-year period since amendments to 10CFR55 were put into effect in 1987, that the requirement for NRC administered requalification exams was an unnecessary use of both NRC and facility resources. GA has maintained throughout that the proper administration of NRC approved requalification programs by the facility licensee is entirely adequate to maintain the necessary degree of operational safety and emergency preparedness at each of the facilities, and especially the non-power facilities which pose little to no risk to public health and safety. We therefore, are gratified to note that NRC has reached the same conclusion as to the effectiveness of facility conduct of requalification programs, as stated in the subject federal register notice:

"Following the 1987 amendment to part 55, the NRC began conducting operator requalification examinations for the purpose of license renewal. As a result of conducting these examinations, the NRC determined that nearly all facility requalification programs met the Commission's expectations and that the NRC examiners were largely duplicating tasks that were already required of, and routinely performed by, the facility licensees. "

Given the above, redirecting NRC resources to inspect requalification programs in place at the facility licensees to ensure performance rather than administer exams is a more effective allocation of resources. Such on-site inspections, coupled with administration of initial examinations and specialized training, would allow NRC to maintain a nucleus of qualified personnel for the required tasks. GA believes that restoring requalification programs to their original (prior to 1987) policy is the proper rule to be promulgated.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission July 14, 1993 Page 3 This would mean that Part 55 would not require that written exams and operating tests be submitted to NRC thirty days in advance for review. Given the fact that NRC reserves the right to conduct its own examination for cause makes the requirement to submit exams an unnecessary regulatory burden, and especially so on the non-power reactors. GA therefore submits that a policy whereby NRC monitors the requalification programs through its routine inspections, by examining requalification records as well as the content of written examinations and operational tests, is entirely adequate to have an effective facility requalification program. This is completely consistent with the NRC's own findings, confirmed in its pilot program of conducting requal exams, that "the facility licensees can find deficiencies, and remediate and retest their licensed operators appropriately. " This especially is true for NPR facilities, where a representative sample of over forty operators at twelve facilities - from the smallest to the largest - have been examined through the first quarter of 1993, with no failures detected during the pilot examinations.

GA commends the commission's proposed rulemaking to reduce the regulatory burden on facility licensees by eliminating the requirement for NRC-conducted requalification examinations. However, NRC can only be partially successful in its effort to have effective requalification programs if it negates the above relief from unnecessary regulation by including a requirement for NRC review of all requalification examinations prior to their conduct. To that end, GA recommends that (1) 10CFR55.57(b)(2)(iv) should be removed in its entirety, as proposed, and (2) 10CFR55.59(c) revised from the as-proposed text to delete the requirement for submittal of examination copies to the regional administrator. GA submits that the latter is an unnecessary burden, given the flexible authority of 10CFR55 .59(a)(2)(iii) for NRC to administer examinations for cause

• based on routine on-site inspections of the facility licensees requalification program. As a minimum, 10CFR55.57(b)(2)(iv) should be removed in its entirety for non-power reactors, which would be consistent with the regulatory policy of minimum regulation for such reactors that is specified in Section 104.C of the Atomic Energy Act.

GA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

Very truly yo~

~7?'

Junaid Razvi, PhD Director, Radiation Services TRIGA Reactor Division

DOCKET NUMBER R55 UNNERSITY OF PROPOSED RULE

( So FR- ;i_q 3& 0 -

FLORIDA ~Li L"

'J-> Nt* C Nuclear Reactor Facility *93 JUL 19 P3 :54 202 Nuclear Science Center Nuclear Engineering Sciences Department Gainesville, FL 32611-2055 (904) 392-1429 Fax 392-3380 July 14, 1993 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATIN: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Proposed Changes in 10 CPR Part 55-Operator Licenses Gentlemen:

The University of Florida Training Reactor facility agrees with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) proposal to delete the requirement that each licensed operator at nonpower reactors pass comprehensive requalification written and operating tests conducted by the NRC during the term of an operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. However, we oppose the other major portion of the proposed change requiring that facility licensees submit copies of each annual comprehensive written examination or operator's test used for operator requalification for review by the Commission at least 30 days prior to conducting the examination or test.

We agree it is important to maintain staff competence in relation to NPR operator licensing and administration of examinations. However, we believe this is best accomplished by maintaining specialized qualified personnel who are familiar with NPR facilities and their operation as well as through specialized training and administration of initial examinations, perhaps a part of or a liaison with the NPR Directorate. Such initial examinations occur frequently enough to maintain proficiency for those designated to give such examinations a small number of personnel in any case.

We have always maintained that the requirement of NRC-administered examinations is both unnecessary and wasteful of resources, particularly when overall safety is considered. As the Federal Register notice indicates, NRC resources can be better directed towards inspecting and overseeing facility requalification programs rather than continuing to conduct individual operator requalification examinations. As the Commission indicates in the Federal Register notice, the Commission has found most programs are functioning well and NRC examiners are largely duplicating tasks that are already required of, and routinely performed by, the facility licensees. Therefore, we urge NRC to return to the original policy in place prior to 1987 and also specifically not require examinations and tests to be submitted 30 days in advance for NRC

.JUL 3 o 1993 Acknowledged b)' card ..................................

Equal Opportunity/ Affirmive Action Institution

review. Several reasons for our opposition to this aspect of the rule are as follows:

1. We see no need for the submission of written examinations and/ or operating tests to NRC for review. The record, as evaluated by NRC, shows most requalification programs have "met the Commission's expectations." Moreover, the NRC already has available to it the means to inspect requalification programs. Certainly we acknowledge NRC's right to conduct examinations for cause at any time and support such actions when justified.

2. The submission of exams and/or tests is not very practical for our facility. As with many NPR facilities, we give a series of written and operational tests and exams during the two-year cycle. It would be impractical and a waste of scarce resources for us to submit a number of examinations and other records on a continuing basis.

3. The 30-day advance submittal implies that NRC will review, and on occasion, request modifications of facility-proposed exams and/or tests. This will make requalifications a rather cumbersome process especially at facilities such as ours where a number of operators are part-time employees.

4. Finally, in recent years the regulatory burden on our facility has increased substantially, to the point where a major portion of our resources is devoted to meeting regulatory requirements that in some cases are clearly unnecessary and also inconsistent with the mandate of minimum regulations to assure the health and safety of the public. There is no doubt that the requalification examination rule falls in this category, especially the NRC always retains the option to administer tests and examinations for cause.

We urge NRC to adopt a rule which deletes the present requirement for NRC-administered requalification examinations (Section 55.57(b)(2)(iv)) and which authorizes such examinations for cause only.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, WGV/cb William G. Vernetson Director of Nuclear Facilities cc: D. Simpkins, Reactor Manager Reactor Safety Review Subcommittee

CCCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE PR ,;S-

{_ S<J F~ o2.f3~0 r LiL:1 Nuclear Reactor Facility G:::i ,u; Nuclear Reactor Rolla. M O 65401 -0249 Telephone (314) 341-4236 UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-ROLLA Missouri's Technological University *93 JUL 15 P4 :16 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Services Branch

Subject:

Proposed Changes to 10CFR Part 55

Dear Secretary:

We have reviewed the May 20, 1993 Federal Register notice proposing changes to 10CFR Part 55, "Operator's Licenses" . we offer the following comments:

1. We support the proposed change to delete the requirement that each licensed operator pass a comprehensive requalification exam administered by NRC as a prerequisite of license renewal.

We feel that this requirement is needless, costly, and burdensome - especially to non-profit university reactor facilities such as ours. We recently hosted an NRC administered requalification exam at our facility (May, 1993) *

• Our candidate passed the exam scoring perfectly on the operators portion and missing only one question on the written exam. In our case, the extra work required for the NRC administration of the exam was completely unnecessary and did not enhance our existing training program.

administered requal test was needlessly burdensome and costiy for our facility as well as for NRC.

The NRC

2. We strongly oppose the proposed change that would require university reactors to submit copies of each annual requal test to NRC 30 days prior to conducting the exam. This requirement is unnecessary and wasteful of resources. We are regularly inspected by NRC on our reqt:tal program. our examination records have always been open for inspection.

Therefore, NRC access to these records continues as always.

There really is no advantage, either -for NRC or for the quality of our program, from the additional burdensome requirement to send in our exams 30 days prior to administering them.

We find our requal training program is completely adequate.

Further, NRC has found our program to be completely adequate as documented by our recent NRC admi n i stered requal exam and JUL 3 0 1993 an equal opportunity institution Acknowledged by card ,._.... __ ,NIN-

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSK>~

DOCKETING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY a= THE COMMISSION Docunent Slatistics PoSlmattc Dalt _ . .,/.J.P.....'.____

5 __

CopesAeoolved_ _/_ _ _ _ __

Add'I Copies Reprodtl:ed _1/.____,,..__

Spec" DistriblJtk)n Je.. I D,S, ()l iU

---~ , ~I

as documented by our NRC inspections in this area. Thus, there is no need to "fix" our existing program with needless and burdensome regulatory requirements.

We already find it difficult to prepare and schedule our annual requalification exam. Almost all of our operators are either students or faculty. This leads to widely varying schedules making it difficult to get everyone together at one time. The additional burden of having to submit our exams to NRC 30 days in advance would make our scheduling even harder, and make it more difficult to meet our annual requirements in a timely fashion. Typically, our written tests are prepared only days in advance of the actual administration.

3. We disagree with the view that NRC should be allowed to freely, without cause or prior Commission approval, administer "discretionary" exams. As stated earlier our program works well and is not in need of "repair". The idea of NRC administering exams on a purely discretionary basis without due "cause" or Commission approval infringes on our rights as licensees, to minimum regulation. Additionally, who will pay the cost for these discretionary visits? With the recent move by NRC to eliminate fee exemptions for university reactors, it appears we would have to pay. This certainly would be intolerable and unnecessary. We agree NRC should have the authority to administer requal exams with just cause - such as significant deficiencies in a facility's requal training (as identified in routine NRC inspections). Otherwise, there certainly needs to be checks and balances on the licensing branch to prevent undue administration of requal exams with questionable benefits and definite high cost.

To date there has been 85 NRC administered requal exams given to the research reactor community. Of these, only 3 candidates have failed. That is a pass rate of 96%. These numbers show that the university reactor community is doing an exceptional job with their requal training programs. This is to be expected, after all, we are in the business of education and training! Our programs work.

Please don't burden us with needless regulation and paperwork.

eman eactor Manager DWF/lp copy to: Dr. Albert E. Bolon, UMR Reactor Director

DOCKET NUMBER PR ,c-r" PROPOSED RULE..:...:.:.___..::

- =:;:1~,...:)t 5g r,_ :2.9:3~~*r )

' 'JStfr ~

• 93 JUL '3 P2 :25 STATE OF VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE 120 STATE STREET I* Cl MONTPELIER, VT 05620-2601 TEL.: (802) 828-2811 FAX: (802) 828-2342 TTYffDD (VT): 1-800-734-8390 July 9, 1993 Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Rule, Operators' Licenses, (58 FR 29366, May 20, 1993)

The following are comments on the proposed rule change for Operators' Licenses referenced above. The Federal Register notice provides the opportunity for comment and we ask that the following be considered. We urge that the proposed change be reconsidered, at least for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant.

Were it not for the regulation presently in place, we believe the health and safety of the people of Vermont could have been effected adversely.

The proposed change would eliminate the requirement for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct and supervise individual operator requa.lification examinations during the term of an operator's 6-year license. Instead, requalification examinat ions would be the sole responsibility of the facility licensee.

In February, 1991, the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant was inspected in accordance with the existing regulation and found to have a failed licenced operator requalification (LOR) program.

See Inspection Report 50-271/91-02 (OL) and Confirmatory Action Letter I-91-007. As outlined in the inspection report, the failed LOR program was a result of NRC grading of operator crew requalification performance; if licensee grading had been used, the LOR program would not have been considered a failed program.

Thus, it was specifically because the NRC conducted individual requalification examinations that Vermont Yankee's failed LOR program was detected.

• Without this NRC responsibility, its unclear whether the resulting beneficial corrective actions would have occurred (facility NRC inspections had not identified the failed LOR program).

JUL 3 O 1993 Acknowledged by card ,.. H . . , . . . . . . . . ." . . . . _ . ._

lJ ~- ,-:*.* ,10,

\.

r P 4

,ark Da Copias Received_:- / _ __ _ _ __

A I . s Re s

Part of the basis for the proposed rule is not accurate, at least for Vermont Yankee. In the Background for the proposed rule the following is stated (58 FR 29366):

"Pilot requalification examinations were conducted in August through December of 1991 **. In conducting the pilot examinations, the NRC examiners and the facility evaluators independently evaluated the crews and compared their results. The results were found to be in total agreement ... The performance of the facilities' evaluators during the pilot examinations further confirmed that the facility licensees can find deficiencies, and remediate and retest their licensed operators' appropriately."

While the pilot requalification examinations found agreement between NRC and facility examiners, just six months earlier at Vermont Yankee, lack of agreement in the same area was clearly documented. Therefore, this background statement should be reconsidered, at least for Vermont Yankee.

We consider having a failed LOR program to be a serious occurrence, potentially affecting the people of our state. With the proposed rule change in effect, we do not have confidence that Vermont Yankee's failed LOR program would have been detected and corrected. Therefore, we urge that you reconsider and rescind the proposed change.

"" I Sincerely,

• ~Jl;f'J~/

Richar6 ~ :-1 ~dano Commissioner State Liaison Officer

DOCKET NUMBER PROPOSED RULE.-...:...:.::_:;...;;;.....-

Omaha Public Power District -n) 444 Sout h 16th Street Mall 7 Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2247 402/636-2000 JUL 12 P ._

3 13 (j)

July 6, 1993 LIC-93 -0171 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

References:

1. Docket No. 50-285

2. Federal Register, Volume 58, No. 96, Dated Thursday, May 20, 1993

SUBJECT:

Comments on Proposed Rule Change to 10 CFR Part 55, Operators ' Licenses Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), licensee and operator for Fort Calhoun Station, has reviewed the subj.ect proposed rule change. In general , OPPD supports the proposed rule change as presented. The removal of the requirement for the NRC to co-examine each license holder at least once during the si x year term of his or her license significantly reduces the burdens on the NRC and facility licensee staffs, allowing better use of resources. An audit/inspection program to monitor the facility requalification programs is an effective method of ensuring that operator license holders continue to display the knowledge and skills necessary to safely operate nuclear power plants.

However, OPPD is concerned about one portion of the proposed change to 10 CFR 55.59{c), which requires each facility licensee to "submit a copy of each comprehensive requal ification written examination or annual operating test to the appropriate Regional Administrator at least 30 days prior to conducting such requalification examination or test."

As a typical facility licensee, OPPD conducts annual requalification examinations over a six to eight week period as the operating crews rotate through their scheduled training cycles. To minimize compromise of examinations, different versions are given each week. As a result, the rule as currently written would require OPPD to provide six or more different versions of the annual requal ification examinations to the NRC for review, either together i n one submittal prior to conducting the first examination, or separately via multiple submittals at least 30 days prior to conduct of each different examination. This would place an administrative burden on the OPPD and NRC staf fs that is greater than the current practice. In addition, extended intervals between development and actual conduct of the examinations would be resource-intensive for the OPPD training staff, since individuals involved in developing the examinations are not permitted to train licensed operators until the examinations are conducted to protect the examinations' integrity.

JUL 3 0 1993 45-5124 Employment with Equal Opportunity Acknowledged by card ..................................,

Male/Female

• U.S. N *CL E~R EGULATO Y COMMISSIO I.JO~ ._ Tl G l SERVICE SECTIOI~

OFFICE OF THE ECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION Postmarit oa - ~~~-- - -

Copies Aece*vect. _ __,._____,- - - -

A

• s

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk LIC-93-0171 Page 2 The intent of the proposed rule is to direct NRC resources towards inspecting and overseeing the licensee requalification program. As in NRC inspections of other licensee programs, a selected sampling sized proportionally to the number and significance of problems identified is appropriate. It should also be noted that examination development materials, including the question "banks" from which individual examination questions are selected, are currently provided to the Regional examiners prior to the development of the NRC-administered examinations.

Accordingly, it is not necessary or effective, given the limited resources available to licensees and the NRC, for all examinations to be provided in advance to the NRC for review on an audit basis. OPPD suggests that the rule allow facility licensees to submit samples of requalification examinations or development materials as requested by the NRC within a reason ab 1e period of conducting the examinations. Consideration should be given to allowing in some cases submittal of materials subsequent to conducting the examinations. The rule should also reflect schedular requirements if the NRC elects to request materials prior to selected examinations; for example, if materials are needed at least 30 days prior to conducting the examination(s}, the NRC must provide the request at least 60 days prior to the examination{s). In these cases, there should be provisions for establishing an examination schedule agreeable to facility licensees and the NRC such that schedular requirements like that noted above can be implemented.

As an alternative, the proposed rule could require submittal of all examination development materials (exam question banks, evaluation scenarios , and job performance measures) 30 days prior to conducting the first examination. This would allow the NRC opportunity to review the content and qual ity of these materials. Evaluation of the actual written examinations and/ or operating tests could occur while the NRC review team is on site.

If you wish to discuss this issue further, please contact Mr. Greg Guliani, Supervisor - Operations Training, at {402) 533 -6025.

Sincerely, L!v-,.,Zl. ~

W. G. Gates Vice President WGG/tcm c: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby &MacRae J. L. Milhoan, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV R. P. Mullikin, NRC Senior Resident Inspector S. D. Bloom, NRC Project Manager

DOCKET NUMBER PR <5 PROPOSED RULE..:...:.::_....)

~ ... _ _

( sg F;e_ c2-'13~(o)

NUCLEAR REACTOR LABORATOFfV I Lr t.,!"i1 AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL CENTER OF USNRC MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

0. K. HARLING 138 Albany Street, Cambridge, Mass. 02139-4296 J, A1 BE~NARD, JR.

Director Telefax No. (617) 253-7300 * *.

t It l -

• D.ire'ctt1r,

, , 1offReactor Operations Telex No. 92- W j:Jri. HrfAM Tel. No. (617) '

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATIN: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Gentlemen:

Proposed Changes in 10 CFR Part 55 - Operator Licenses The Massachusetts Institute of Technology supports the proposal of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to amend its regulations to delete the requirement that each licensed operator at power, test, and research reactors pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by NRC during the term of the operator's six-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. However, MIT strongly opposes the other major aspect of the proposed change, namely the requirement that facility licensees submit copies of each annual comprehensive written examination or operating test used for operator requalification for review by the Commission at least 30 days prior to conducting the examination or the test. Instead, MIT urges the NRC to restore its pre-1987 practice under which licensees conducted their own requalification programs subject to periodic review during routine NRC inspections. That approach was effective in terms of training. Specifically, we quote from the register notice:

"Following the 1987 amendment to part 55, the NRC began conducting operator requalification examinations for the purpose of license renewal.

As a result of conducting these examinations, the NRC determined that nearly all facility requalification programs met the Commission's expectations and that the NRC examiners were largely duplicating tasks that were already required of, and routinely performed by, the facility licensees."

Specific reasons for MIT's opposition to the submission of requalification exams and/or operating tests to the NRC are as follows:

(1) There is no need for this action. No problem exists relative to operator requalification. So why should the community be subject to further regulation?

(2) The NRC already has available to it the means to inspect requalification programs.

Moreover, if a deficiency is found, NRC can act because it has reserved the right to conduct requalification exams 'for cause.' ( ~ : MIT endorses NRC's right to take such action.)

JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by cardN*--..- -

~ - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -

U.S. NUCL t:A:'1 REGULATORY COMMISSIOI'-.

OOC'<!::TI G & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE CO MISSION Document Statistics Postmark Date  ?-/ ~/-J-.3

/ I Coples Received._ _ _ _.,,___ __

(3) The 30-day advance submittal implies that NRC will review and, on occasion, request modifications of facility-proposed exams and/or tests. This will make requalifications a rather cumbersome process.

(4) In a separate action, NRC has recently proposed to impose license fees of $65K on non-power reactors. While the outcome of that proposal is unclear at this writing, it is clear that NRC needs to reduce the cost of regulation. This rule will increase costs because manpower will be needed to review each of the written examinations and/or operating tests. The $65K fee figure is a significant fraction of the annual budget for most non-power reactors and, in some cases, it exceeds the annual budget. Something is seriously wrong when it costs more to regulate a facility than it does to run it. Accordingly, MIT feels that NRC should be looking to reduce, not increase, costs.

In summary, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology urges NRC to adopt a rule which deletes the present requireme!1t for NRC-ad!!1inistere<l requalification examinations (Section 55.57(b)(2)(iv)) and which authorizes such examinations for cause only.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, 9,,~ A  ;-;;;;/

John A. Bernard, Ph.D.

Director of Reactor Operations MIT Research Reactor

• JAB/CRH cc: USNRC - Project Manager, NRR/PDNP USNRC - Region I - Chief, Effluents Radiation Protection Section (ERPS)

FRSSB/DRSS

(l)

James A. Banke 3415 Newark-Marion Road *93 JUL -9 ~\ 9 :35 Marion, New York 14505 July 1, 1993

._, r r !L =- ... i,:  : t v it-. r Y t:,ULK[ i1Nf: ** r; t,VICf Secretary !11 41,, j; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Branch Dear Sirs; As a Licenced Senior Reactor Operator and tax payer, I respectfully urge you to approve the 10CFR55 rule change to eliminate the Nuclear Regulatory Commission re-examination of each licenced individual every six years.

The exam process has changed greatly over the past eight years, these changes have been very costly to utilities, investers, customers and tax payers. I have yet to see where direct NRC participation in the re-qual testing process has increased reactor saftey or improved the operator knowledge level. Due to the changing exam process, I felt I spent more time learning about the new testing processes every year than on upgrading my knowledge level. Upgrading an operator's knowledge level increases reactor saftey, but learning how to take this year's version of a re-qual exam does not.

In my opinion, better results can be obtained by allowing the exam process to stabilize and thereby allowing "corrective evolution" to take place. The changes to the examination process can be better evaluated and thought out prior to implementation.

~~Licence# SOP-10804 Docket# 55-60449 JUL 3 o 1993 Acknowledged by card .*._ ..___

- ....l'O

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOf-4 DOCKETING l SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRET1'R¥ OF THE COMMISSION DocUm6nt StatistiCI Postmar\( Date _ . .',1._""'~--A Copies Rece!Wd.__/_7_ '_

.s~; .i:_____

Ad ' . ~/

Sp

DOCKET NUMBER PR POSED RULE S-5 (5g>FR__ c.29300 DEPARTM . ......._.,. . . . R SAF~~

10 . ~ E SPRI ::, 1627(l}B JUL -2 p 2 :4 2 1/, .

Jim Edgar 'Zr.

~-

Governor 2'

• ~ ,.*~... :,.,.::.,.),":_:,'!-*>-

June 29, 1993 Secretary of the Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• Attn: Docketing and Service Branch The Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety (IONS) appreciates the opportunity to comment on items pertinent to the nuclear industry, and hereby submits its comments on the proposed rule on Operator's Licenses. IONS is the lead agency in Illinois for preparing emergency plans for, and in cooperation with the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA), coordinating emergency responses to accidents at nuclear power plants.

Highly trained operators are extremely important to the defense-in-depth concept of reactor safety. The level of capability of plant licensed operators is as varied as the number of operators; so varied, in fact, that modeling operator performance for PRA assumptions is acknowledged to be a major flaw in PRAs. Having highly trained operators is perhaps even more important than having well maintained equipment, from a safety standpoint .

IONS disagrees with the proposal to eliminate the requirement that nuclear power plant operators take an NRC administered license renewal exam every six years.

As the proposed rule points out, the training performance of utilities improved dramatically after the NRC began conducting operator requalification exams. This improvement was realized primarily because the NRC was actively involved in monitoring the programs. IONS thinks that the likelihood of this performance improving further, or even maintaining the same level, in the absence of periodic, independent and direct involvement by the NRC, is highly unlikely. The present system provides a strong incentive for licensees to maintain the quality of their operator training program.

IONS questions why the licensee is involved in the preparation of the six-year exam, rather than the NRC preparing and administering it independ-ently. This would eliminate any "burden to the licensee" concerns. IONS is also concerned that under the proposed rule, weaknesses in training programs may not become sufficiently evident until operator errors become numerous.

Such a situation reduces the margin of safety at nuclear power plants until remedial programs are instituted that return operator knowledge to a satisfactory level.

JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card .......~ ..,,,,,,,,,,,nsc,ww,.

@ recyclable

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOI\

OOCKE:TING & SERVICE SECTION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Of THE COMMISSION Document Statistics Postmark Oats &/ 30 / C/ 3 Copies Received / ,

Adt!'I Coples Reprod~ _ 1/ ...:..-- ....--

S!9,"**: * .,!';but:on fS-£00 ?J)f .;

JJ!fW&~ 2¢41i)

J Secretary, U.S. NRC Page 2 June 29, 1993 IONS recommends a combination of routine NRC inspections of "crew examinations" on a plant simulator, and a periodic, independent test administered every six years, as a way of providing to the licensee an incentive to keep their requalification programs excellent. Administering the same exam to all licensed operators at the same time, instead of in small groups more often than every six years, would provide a good quality check of the licensee program. It would, in addition, confirm that the INPO accredit-ation programs are remaining effective. We agree with the comments of Commissioners Rogers and Curtiss, and believe that this recommendation will satisfy their comments as well .

• Finally, as the NRC gravitates toward performance-based inspections, it appears to IONS that operator requalification programs are a logical candidate. Observing operating crews perform on a simulator, evaluating the results of an independently administered exam, and monitoring operator error root causes in LERs are ready made performance-based criteria. Instituting more frequent inspections of programs that are already established and accredited, seems to be going in the opposite direction from the performance-based inspection philosophy .

• TWO:rlc

J bee: Gordon Appel Roy Wight Steve England

North P.O. Box 300 Seabrook, NH 03874

~----=--,,~== Atlantic Telephone (603) 474-9521 Facsimile (603) 474-2987 Energy Service Corporation Ted C. Feigenbaum

• 93 JUN 24 P3 :48 Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer

_i;;; !L> : rd if.i *., NYN- 93093

(:,\JCKt i !N' , , v1r:,

June 18, 1993 Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Gentlemen:

Facility Operating License No. NPF-86, Docket No. 50-443 Comments on Proposed Rule to Amend 10CFR55 (Operators' Licenses)

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation, as the operator of Seabrook Station, is pleased to have this opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to 10CFR55 (58FR29366). The amendment would delete the requirement that each licensed operator at power, test and research reactors pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for renewal.

North Atlantic generally supports this change since it would allow both the NRC and the facility to more effectively allocate its resources. The NRC would be in a better position to direct its efforts toward its main oversight and inspection mission. The facility, likewise, would be freed of the administrative and regulatory burden of assisting the NRC in conducting the examinations and would, therefore, also be better able to concentrate on its main mission of training. This rule change would also be in line with the goals of the NRC's Regulatory Review Group to eliminate requirements that unnecessarily restrict a licensee's flexibility in meeting NRC requirements and ensuring continued safe operations.

North Atlantic, however, believes that much of these gains would be lost by the requirement to submit all annual operating tests or comprehensive examinations to the NRC at least thirty days prior to conducting the tests or exams. For most licensees, this would require the submittal of six different examinations given to the six operating crews. More importantly, it would create a choke point in the training and examination schedule and enter uncertainty in the process. To make a submission to the NRC thirty days before the exam, the licensee would realistically have to target completion at least sixty days prior.

Once submitted, the licensee would naturally be reluctant to make changes since they would require additional submittals and possibly even postponement of the examinations.

Since the requalification program must be reviewed and approved by the Commission, and the Staff will review the examinations on an audit basis, the thirty-day submittal is totally unnecessary. It will do little, if anything, to facilitate the NRC's oversight capability.

It will, however, create a resource loading concern for the licensee and require that the training and testing cycle schedule be built around these submissions. Any questions or concerns that the Staff has can, and should be, resolved during the NRC program audit and their normal oversight not just before the culmination of the entire training cycle. At that a member of the Northeast Utilities system A kn led JUL 3 0 1993 C ow goo by card ................................ .

-- -- ,* ,. :: 1=)~~*:s:1;,

• '

• a I ~.:.d

.,- ~ ,'* :*\'!

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 18, 1993 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Page two point, the time and energies of the training staff should not be distracted by a deadline that has no bearing on what they are trying to accomplish. This aspect of an otherwise beneficial rule change needlessly complicates the training and examination cycle and thereby detracts from it and should be removed.

If you have any questions on this matter or would like to discuss it further, please contact Mr. Anthony M. Callendrello, Licensing Manager, at (603) 474-9521, extension 2751.

Very truly yours,

~?.4~

Ted C. Feigenbaum TCF:JBH/act cc: Mr. Thomas T. Martin Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406 Mr. Albert W. De Agazio, Sr. Project Manager Project Directorate 1-4 Division of Reactor Projects U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Noel Dudley NRC Senior Resident Inspector P.O. Box 1149 Seabrook, NH 03874

o*~.1l<cTNUMBERpn ~

PRCPOSED RULE .J :3---

C53'F R~Cf 366.

UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS Offic e of Graduate Affai rs AT AMHERST ,, L ; Li.*

1

., Ni C School of Nursing Arnold House, Room 227 Amherst, MA 01003

• 93 JUN 21 P3 :36 (413) 545-2 703 June 8, 1993 Secretary of the Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Att: Docketing and Service Branch

Dear Secretary of Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

I have been made aware of a proposal to eliminate the requirement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission administered requalification written exams and operating tests, prior to six year nuclear operating licenses can be renewed. I understand that these exams, under the new proposal, would be given by the nuclear facilities themselves.

This lessening of safety surveillance regulation by an agency external to a nuclear facility is a cause for alarm. The potential for a conflict of interest to occur is great. The existing I 0%

failure rate is cause for concern already - who will assure the public that incompetent or unfit operators will be identified by a facility with a vested interest in its own employees as well as its relicensing status?

The public has already had to endure the nuclear reactor emissions that are "part of normal operating procedure", which many studies have shown as detrimental to the public health. I believe that further relaxation of regulations regarding operator competence increases the likelihood of nuclear accident.

Haven't we learned yet that it is more economical (not to mention safer to the public health) to prevent nuclear disaster than it is to remediate it?* )

I would appreciate a reply from you on this matter.

Sincerely,

• Mary e Bright, ~ d D Associate Professor JUL 3 0 1993 Acknowledged by card ....."....- .._"""":..

The University of Massac hu setts Is an Aff irmati ve Action /Equal Opportunity Institut ion

0 Cl{ET NUMBER ROPOSED RULE

" (5"ZJf R:Lq36- 6)~

5 (j) 1h2 Rebecca Street

• 93 ,JUN -7 p 3 :40 Grover Beach, Ca. 93433 June 3, 1993

, I. L, I\_

Secretary of the Commission \ -r Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docl<et1ng and Service Branch Sirs:

I understand that you are conRiderinp.; an amendment to Part 55 of the NRC regulations.

It vrnuld be a ball miRta.ke to weaken the Commission's supervisory con-trol of nuclear plants. Nuclear power ple.nts, like any other busin~ss, focus on making a profit for their investors. They are tempted to get careless with public safety and to cut corners. They should not be left to regulate themselves. NRC should continue to conduct tests to reactor operators.

There are many Americans viho would prefer not to have nnclear plants at ell. If we ere going to continue to operate them, we should not weaken the regulations which promote public safety.

Sincerely, JUL 3 o 19SJ cknowledged t>y card ......... .,." ... u .., ... .. _ .,

. *. .'~13 10 Tl

• I

• y

.... . t -

[7590-01-P)

• 93 MAY 14 P: :t: 8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 55 RIN 3150-AE39 Operators' Licenses AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to delete the requirement that each licensed operator at power, test and research reactors pass a comprehensive requalification written

- examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. The proposed amendment will require facility licensees to submit copies of each annual operating test or comprehensive written examination used for operator requalification for review by the Commission at least 30 days prior to conducting the examination or the test. In addition, the proposed rule will amend the "Scope" provisions of the regulations pertaining to operators' licenses to include facility licensees.

7/1q/qj DATES: The comment period expires (60 days from date of publication).

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver comments to: One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays . Copies of the draft regulatory analysis, as well as copies of the comments received on the proposed rule, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. {Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Rajender Auluck, P.E., Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: (301) 492-3794, or David Lange, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-3171.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 authorized and directed the NRC "to promulgate regulations, or other appropriate Commission regulatory guidance, for the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear power plant operators, supervisors, technicians and other 2

appropriate operating personnel." The regulations or guidance were to "establish simulator training requirements for applicants for civilian nuclear power plant operator licenses and for operator requalification programs; requirements governing NRC administration of requalification examinations; requirements for operating tests at civilian nuclear power plant simulators, and instructional requirements for civilian nuclear power plant licensee personnel training programs." On March 25, 1987 (52 FR 9453), the Co11111ission accomplished the objectives of the NWPA that were related to licensed operators by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register that amended 10 CFR Part 55, effective May 26, 1987. The amendment revised the licensed operator requalification program by establishing (1) simulator training requirements, (2) requirements for operating tests at simulators, and (3) instructional requirements for the program (formerly Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 55). The final rule also stipulated that in lieu of the Co11111ission accepting certification by the facility licensee that the licensee has passed written examinations and operating tests given by the facility licensee within its Commission approved program developed by using a systems approach to training (SAT), the Commission may give a comprehensive requalification written examination and an annual operating test. In addition, the amended regulations required each licensed operator to pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal.

Following the 1987 amendment to Part 55, the NRC began conducting operator requalification examinations for the purpose of license renewal. As a result of conducting these examinations, the NRC determined that nearly all 3

facility requalification programs met the Commission's expectations and that the NRC examiners were largely duplicating tasks that were already required of, and routinely performed by, the facility licensees.

The NRC revised its requalification examination procedures in 1988 to focus on performance-based evaluation criteria that closely paralleled the training and evaluation process used for a SAT based training program. This revision to the NRC requalification examination process enabled the NRC to conduct comprehensive examinations for the purpose of renewing an individual's license and, at the same time, use the results of the examinations to determine the adequacy of the facility licensee's requalification training program.

Since the NRC began conducting operator requalification examinations, the facility program and individual pass rates have improved from 81 to 90 percent and from 83 to 91 percent, respectively, through fiscal year 1991.

The NRC has also observed a general improvement in the quality of the facility licensees' testing materials and in the performance of their operating test evaluators. Of the first 79 program evaluations conducted, ten (10) programs were evaluated as unsatisfactory. The NRC issued Information Notice No. 90-54, "Summary of Requalification Program Deficiencies," dated August 28, 1990, to describe the technical deficiencies that contributed to the first 10 program failures. Since that time only six programs, of 120 subsequent program evaluations, have been evaluated as unsatisfactory.

Pilot requalification examinations were conducted in August through December of 1991. The pilot test procedure directed the NRC examiners to focus on the evaluation of crews, rather than individuals, in the simulator portion of the operating test. In conducting the pilot examinations, the NRC 4

examiners and the facility evaluators independently evaluated the crews and compared their results. The results were found to be in total agreement.

Furthermore, the NRC examiners noted that the facility evaluators were competent at evaluating crews and individuals and were aggressive in finding deficiencies and recommending remediation for operators who exhibited weaknesses. The performance of the facilities' evaluators during the pilot examinations further confirmed that the facility licensees can find deficiencies, and remediate and retest their licensed operators' appropriately.

Discussion In accordance with § 55.57(b)(2)(iii), licensed operators are required to pass facility requalification examinations and annual operating tests. In

§ 55.57(b)(2)(iv), licensed operators are also required to pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of a 6-year license. These regulations establish requirements which impose a dual responsibility on both the facility licensee which assists in developing and conducting its own as well as NRC requalification examinations, and the NRC which supervises both the facility licensee requalification program as well as conducting a comprehensive requalification examination during the term of an operator's 6-year license.

The NRC believes operational safety at each facility will continue to be ensured, and, in fact, will be improved, if NRC resources are directed towards inspecting and overseeing the facility requalification programs rather than continuing to conduct individual operator requalification examinations. The 5

NRC's experience since the beginning of the requalification program indicates that weaknesses in the implementation of the facility program are generally the root cause of deficiencies in the performance of operators. The NRC could more effectively allocate its resources to perform on-site inspections of facility requalification examination and training programs in accordance with indicated programmatic performance rather than scheduling examiners in accordance with the number of individuals requiring license renewal. The NRC expects to find and correct programmatic weaknesses more rapidly and improve operational safety by redirecting the examiner resources to inspect programs.

As of October 9, 1992, the NRC had conducted requalification examinations at 11 research and test reactor facilities for a total of 34 operators being examined. No failures were identified. For research and test reactors, this sample provides the NRC with little data to support the same rationale that is discussed above with respect to power reactors. However, the NRC believes that the flexibility to allocate resources based on indicated programmatic performance rather than on the number of individuals requiring license renewal would also improve operational safety at research and test reactors. In addition, the proposed rule does not prevent the NRC from conducting requalification examinations at research and test reactor facilities.

Currently, facility licensees assist in the development and conduct of the NRC requalification examinations. The assistance includes providing to the NRC (1) the training material used for development of the written and operating examinations and (2) facility personnel to work with the NRC during the development and conduct of the examinations. The proposed amendments would reduce the regulatory burden on the facility licensees by reducing the 6

effort expended by the facility to assist the NRC in developing and conducting NRC requalification examinations for licensed operators.

As part of the proposed rule change, the facility licensees would be required to submit to the NRC each annual operating test or comprehensive written examination used for operator requalification at least 30 days prior to giving the test or examination. The NRC would review these examinations on an audit basis for conformance with 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(i&ii). The NRC would also review other information already available to the staff to determine the scope of an on-site inspection of the facility requalification program. The NRC would continue to expect each facility to meet all of the conditions required for conducting a requalification program in accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c).

Licensed operators would not have to take any additional actions. Each operator would continue to meet all the conditions of his or her license described in 10 CFR 55.53, which includes passing the facility-conducted requalification examinations for license renewal. Each licensed operator would be expected to continue to meet the requirements of the facility requalification training program. However, the licensed operator would no longer be required to pass a requalification examination conducted by the NRC during the term of his or her license as a condition of license renewal.

The "Scope" of Part 55, § 55.2, will be revised to include facility licensees. This is an addition to the regulation. It eliminates currently existing ambiguities between the regulations of Parts 50 and 55. Part 50, in

§ 50.54(i) through (m), already imposes Part 55 requirements on facility licensees, and Part 55 already specifies requirements for facility licensees.

7

The proposed amendments would meet the requirements of Section 306 of the NWPA without the requirement that each licensed individual pass a requalification examination conducted by the NRC during the 6-year term of the individual's license. The requirements of the NWPA would be met as follows:

I) the regulations would continue to require facilities to have requalification programs and conduct requalification examinations; 2) the NRC would provide oversight (i.e., administration) for these programs and examinations through inspections; and 3) § 55.59(a)(2)(iii) provides that the NRC may conduct requalification examinations in lieu of accepting the facility licensee's certification that a licensed individual has passed the facility requalification examination. The NRC will use this option if warranted after an on-site inspection of the facility's requalification program. The proposed amendments would not affect the regulatory or other appropriate guidance required by Section 306 of the NWPA and established in § 55.59(a)(2)(iii) for the NRC to conduct requalification examinations in lieu of an examination given by the facility.

Invitation To Comment Comments concerning the scope, content, and implementation of the proposed amendments are encouraged. Comments are solicited on the burden created by the requirement that each facility licensee submit and the NRC review all annual operating tests or comprehensive written examinations at least thirty days prior to conducting such tests or exams. In addition, comments on the applicability of the proposed amendments to research and test 8

reactor facilities are especially solicited, as are suggestions for alternatives to those rulemaking methods described in this notice.

Commissioner Rogers' separate views.

Commissioner Rogers believes that the staff should be allowed the discretion to administer exams as they feel necessary, i.e., other than for cause, without receiving prior Commission approval. Reasons for allowing the staff to administer discretionary exams include:

I. Providing an additional incentive to licensees to maintain the quality of their operator training programs.

2. Providing a benchmark with good performing plants by which to judge the adequacy of the licensees' operator training programs.

3. Providing a basis to determine whether or not licensee examiner standards need to be revised.

4. Providing an independent check of the quality of the licensees' operator training programs.

5. Providing the NRC staff the opportunity to maintain its examination expertise.

9

6. Ensuring that the latest, state-of-the-art testing and assessment techniques are being used.

Commissioner Curtiss' separate views.

The staff has proposed that they be allowed to administer requalification examinations in two situations: (i) where cause exists for administering such examinations; and (ii) on a periodic basis, at a specified frequency of once every six years at each facility. There is no disagreement within the Commission over allowing the staff to administer "for cause" examinations.

The dispute arises over whether the staff should be afforded the discretion to administer examinations in situations other than where "cause" exists, without first coming to the Commission for advance approval. The staff has recommended that they be allowed the flexibility to administer such examinations at their discretion and, with one minor exception, I agree with the staff's recommendation. [I do not believe it wise or essential to specify a set periodicity for such examinations of once every six years, and, on this point, I concur in the majority view].

The majority, as I understand it, would limit the staff to administering examinations solely "for cause", and would not allow the staff to administer examinations in any other situation absent formal approval by the Co11111ission (i.e., where, in the staff's discretion, the staff deems it appropriate to do so). There are compelling reasons, in my judgment, for allowing the staff the flexibility to administer such "discretionary" examinations on its own accord.

In this regard, Commissioner Rogers has set forth the reasons for allowing the 10

staff to administer such examinations, and I concur in the reasons that he has articulated so persuasively.

Given the significant changes in the agency's operator requalification program that the staff has proposed in SECY-92-430 (and in which I generally concur),

I would have preferred a more cautious transition, wherein the effectiveness of the new regulatory approach could be confirmed through such discretionary examinations, before placing reliance on "for cause" examinations and an unproven inspection regime. This is particularly important given the continuing identification of weaknesses in licensee training programs uncovered by our current examination process. Accordingly, I believe that it would be a prudent step to allow the staff this flexibility. In my judgment, the majority's insistence upon requiring the staff to come to the Commission for advance approval in every such instance is, as a practical matter, likely to discourage the staff from administering such examinations where they may indeed be warranted.

For the foregoing reasons, I disagree with the decision of the majority to foreclose the staff from administering examinations in such circumstances, absent formal approval by the Commission. I also associate myself with Commissioner Rogers' comments.

11

Additional comments of the Chairman, and Commissioners Remick and de Planque.

The Chairman and Commissioners Remick and de Planque believe that all of the objectives listed by Commissioner Rogers and endorsed by Comissioner Curtiss can be met, and are being met, through various alternatives to administering requalification tests and exams periodically. For example, the staff will continue to administer an estimated 700-800 initial operator license examina-tions per year; it will conduct examinations for cause using the flexible e authority already provided by the regulations, and as otherwise approved by the Commission; it will observe the administration of examinations by the licensees as part of both the NRC's inspection program activities and INPO's and the National Academy of Nuclear Training's accreditation and assessment activities, permitted by the NRC/INPO MOU; and the staff will have the benefit of continuous observation by Resident Inspectors.

These existing alternatives provide considerable opportunity for the staff to assess the effectiveness of licensee training programs. Indeed, the proposed Statement of Considerations says that the agency "expects to find and correct programmatic weaknesses more rapidly and improve operational safety by redirecting the examiner resources to inspect programs," (p. 6, our emphasis.)

If the staff identifies weaknesses in licensee training programs, the staff may then exercise the flexible authority of 10 CFR 55.59 (a)(2)(iii) to administer requalification tests and exams for cause.

Staff expertise needed to administer requalification tests and examinations can also be maintained by participation in training courses, just as staff 12

expertise such as that needed by IIT members is maintained. Innovative con-cepts like administering examinations and tests to instructors and appropriate operator licensing personnel on the simulators at the Technical Training Center is another way of maintaining this kind of staff expertise.

If the staff finds that with experience there is, in fact, a basis for administering periodic exams or any other alternatives, they are at liberty to provide the rationale and plan for Commission consideration. However, the information the staff has presented does not convince us of any necessity for administering periodic exams.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The NRC has determined that the proposed amendments, if adopted, are the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(l).

Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing 13

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-3019, (3150-0018 and 3150-0101),

Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the values (benefits) and impacts (costs) of implementing the proposed regulation for licensed operator requalification.

The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level}, Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Rajender Auluck (see ADDRESSES heading).

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. This rule primarily affects the companies that own and operate light-water nuclear power reactors.

The companies that own and operate these reactors do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entity" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility 14

Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121. Since these companies are dominant in their service areas, this rule does not fall within the purview of its Act.

Backfit Analysis Currently, facility licensees assist in developing and coordinating the NRC-conducted requalification examinations. The assistance includes providing to the NRC the training material used for development of the written examinations and operating tests and providing facility personnel to work with the NRC during the development and conduct of the examinations. The Commission has concluded on the basis of the documented evaluation required by 10 CFR Part 50.109(a)(4), that complying with the requirement of this proposed rule would: (1) reduce the regulatory burden on the facility licensees by reducing the effort expended by the facility licensees to assist the NRC in developing and conducting NRC requalification examinations for licensed operators, and (2) increase the regulatory burden on the facility licensees by requiring them to submit all requalification examinations at least 30 days prior to conducting the examinations.

As part of the proposed amendments, the facility licensees would be required to submit to the appropriate Regional Administrator each annual requalification operating test or comprehensive written requalification examination at least 30 days prior to conducting such test or examination.

The NRC would review these examinations on an audit basis for conformance with 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(i&ii). The NRC would conduct this review and review other 15

information already available to the NRC to determine the scope of an on-site inspection of the facility requalification program. The NRC would continue to expect each facility to meet all of the conditions required of a requalification program in accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c).

Licensed operators would not have to take any additional actions. Each operator would be expected to continue to meet all the conditions of his or her license described in 10 CFR 55.53, which includes passing the facility requalification examinations for license renewal. Each licensed operator would be expected to continue to meet the requirements of the facility requalification training program. However, the licensed operator would no longer be required to pass a requalification examination conducted by the NRC during the term of his or her license, in addition to passing the facility licensee's requalification examinations, as a condition of license renewal.

The "Scope" of Part 55, 10 CFR 55.2, would be revised to include facility licensees. This is an addition to the regulation. It eliminates currently existing ambiguities between the regulations of Parts 50 and 55.

Part 50, in sections 50.54(i) through (m), already imposes Part 55 e requirements on facility licensees, and Part 55 already specifies requirements for facility licensees.

The Commission believes that licensed operators are one of the main components and possibly the most critical component of continued safe reactor operation, especially with respect to mitigating the consequences of emergency conditions. Two-thirds of the requalification programs that have been evaluated as "unsatisfactory" had significant problems in the quality or implementation of the plant's emergency operating procedures (EOPs). In some of these cases, the facility licensees did not train their operators on 16

challenging simulator scenarios or did not retrain their operators after the EOPs were revised. The Commission believes that it could have identified these problems sooner by reviewing facility requalification examinations and operating tests and inspecting facility requalification training and examination programs. Facility licensees could have then corrected these problems and improved overall operator job performance sooner.

This proposed rule is intended to improve operational safety by providing the means to find and correct weaknesses in facility licensee requalification programs more rapidly than provided for under the current regulations. The experience gained from conducting NRC requalification examinations indicates that the NRC is largely duplicating the efforts of the facility licensees. The NRC could more effectively use its resources to oversee facility licensee requalification programs rather than conducting individual operator requalification examinations for all licensed operators.

During fiscal year (FY) 1991, the NRC expended approximately 15 full-time staff equivalents (FTE} and $1.8 million in contractor assistance funds (which equates to almost 10 additional FTE), for a total of 25 FTE, to conduct requalification examinations. However, the staff expects to conduct about 20 percent fewer requalification examinations during FY 1993 through FY 1997 because the staff's examination efforts to date hav*e greatly reduced the number of operators who require an NRC conducted examination for license renewal during this 4-year period. Consequently, if the NRC continues conducting requalification examinations for all licensed operators, the staff estimates that it would require approximately 20 FTE each year. Therefore, implementing the proposed requalification inspection program would save the 17

equivalent of about 7 FTE (or $1.3 million) each year over conducting requalification examinations at the reduced rate for the long term.

Each facility licensee would continue in its present manner of conducting its licensed operator requalification program. However, this proposed rule would reduce the burden on the facility licensees because each facility licensee would have its administrative and technical staff expend fewer hours than are now needed to assist in developing and conducting the NRC requalification examinations. Facility licensees are expected to realize a combined annual operational cost savings of approximately $820K.

In summary, the proposed rule is expected to result in improved operational safety by providing more timely identification of weaknesses in facility licensees' requalification programs. In addition, the proposed rule would also reduce the resources expended by both the NRC and the licensees.

The Commission has, therefore, concluded that the proposed rule meets the requirements of 10 CFR 50.109, that there would be a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety and the cost of implementation are justified.

List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 55 Criminal penalty, Manpower training programs, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

18

Text of Final Regulation 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, as amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 as follows:

PART 55 - OPERATORS' LICENSES

1. The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 55 continues to read as follows:

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).

2. In § 55.2, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

§ 55.2 Scope (c) Any facility licensee.

§ 55.57 [Amended]

3. Section 55.57(b)(2)(iv) is amended by removing paragraph (b)(2)(iv).

4. In § 55.59 the introductory text of paragraph {c) is revised to read as follows:

19

§ 55.59 Reayalification (c) Requa7ification program requirements. A facility licensee shall have a requalification program reviewed and approved by the Co11111ission and shall submit a copy of each comprehensive requalification written examination or annual operating test to the appropriate Regional Administrator at least 30 days prior to conducting such examination or test. The requalification program must meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(l) 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.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this li~ay of _M_ay_ _ _ _ _ , 1993.

Fr the Nucl r Regulatory Co11111ission.

amuel J. Chilk Secretary of th Co11111ission.

20