ML25269A024
| ML25269A024 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Issue date: | 09/25/2025 |
| From: | Pimentel F Nuclear Energy Institute |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| NRC-2023-0034, 90FR35558 00003, NUREG-1478 R3 | |
| Download: ML25269A024 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 9/26/25, 6:30 AM Received: September 25, 2025 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. mfz-orvs-dxfh Comments Due: September 26, 2025 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2023-0034 Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors Comment On: NRC-2023-0034-0001 Draft NUREG: Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors Document: NRC-2023-0034-DRAFT-0003 Comment on FR Doc # 2025-14174 Submitter Information Email:atb@nei.org Organization:Nuclear Energy Institute General Comment See attached file(s)
Attachments 09-25-25_NRC_Comments on Draft NUREG-1478 9/26/25, 6:30 AM NRC-2023-0034-DRAFT-0003.html file:///C:/Users/BHB1/Downloads/NRC-2023-0034-DRAFT-0003.html 1/1 SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Michele DeSouza, Linh Tran, Mary Neely Comment (3)
Publication Date:
7/28/2025 Citation: 90 FR 35558
Frances Pimentel Senior Project Manager Phone: 202-739-8132 Email: fap@nei.org September 25, 2025 Office of Administration Mail Stop: TWFN-7-A60M U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001
Subject:
Comments on Draft NUREG-1478, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors, Revision 3 (Docket ID NRC-2023-0034)
Submitted via Regulations.gov Project Number: 689
Dear Program Management,
Announcements, and Editing Staff:
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI),1 on behalf of its members in the U.S. Test, Training, and Research Reactor (TRTR) community, appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on draft NUREG-1478, Revision 3, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors.
We support the NRCs intent to update and clarify examiner standards. The inclusion of electronic filing systems, the reorganization of content for usability, and alignment with current regulatory requirements are valuable improvements. However, through a coordinated review, the TRTRs community identified some technical and administrative concerns where the proposed language could introduce unintended burdens for research and test reactors.
1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.
Office of Administration September 26, 2025 Page 2 Nuclear Energy Institute Our principal concerns include the following:
Medical Qualifications: Draft Revision 3 references ANSI/ANS-3.4, a power reactor standard, but ignores ANSI/ANS-15.4, which has long provided appropriate criteria for research and test reactor personnel. Use of the power reactor standard is inappropriate for TRTR facilities.
Temporary Medical Conditions: Revision 2 allowed administrative suspension of operator licenses for temporary medical conditions without NRC action. Removal of this provision in Revision 3 creates unnecessary rigidity.
License Application Timelines: The extension to 30 working days for NRC Forms 396 and 398 is overly restrictive. The use of working days also introduces ambiguity compared to calendar-day requirements elsewhere in NRC guidance.
Fairness in Examinations: Revision 2 prohibited the same examiner from administering a candidates retake exam. This safeguard was removed in Revision 3, raising concerns about impartiality and consistency.
Scoring Criteria and Documentation: The new requirements for dual thresholds (70% overall and 70% by category) and the requirement to document the safety significance of weaknesses risk introducing subjectivity and inconsistency across facilities. to this letter provides a detailed summary table of TRTR comments on Draft NUREG-1478 Revision 3. We appreciate the NRCs effort in developing this draft guidance and encourage consideration of all stakeholder comments prior to finalizing the guidance in NUREG-1478. We trust that you will find these comments useful and informative as you finalize the draft.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me at fap@nei.org. We look forward to continued engagement with the NRC staff to ensure safe, effective, and efficient licensing and training of TRTR operators.
Sincerely, Frances Pimentel Senior Project Manager CC:
Tony Brown, NRR, DANU, UNPO, US NRC Michele DeSouza, NRR, DANU, UNPO, US NRC Consolidated Comments on Draft NUREG -1478 Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors Number Section/
Page Comment/Basis Recommendation
- 1.
Section 2.2, Eligibility Requirements and Guidelines, ES 2.2 Page 1 of 11 Timeline increased from 14 days to 30 working days. This is overly restrictive, inconsistent with other NRC documents, and confusing (working days vs. calendar days).
Retain 14 days, or if NRC insists on an extension, specify 20 days instead of 30 working days to ensure clarity and consistency.
- 2.
Section 2.2, Eligibility Requirements and Guidelines, ES 2.2 Page 1 of 11 Draft NUREG-1478 Revision 3 changed the term days to working days. This adds unnecessary confusion when determining the forms submission timeline.
Retain the use of days vs. working days.
There are a lot of places in this document that don't specify working days and just use days. This should be made consistent throughout the document and consistent with the CFR language.
- 3.
Section 2.2, Eligibility Requirements and Guidelines C.
Licensing Medical Requirements, ES 2.2 Page 3 of 11 Draft NUREG-1478 references Section 3.1 of ANSI/ANS-3.4, which the NRC endorsed in Regulatory Guide 1.134, Medical Assessment of Licensed Operators or Applicants for Operator Licenses at Nuclear Power Plants, when discussing delegation of portions of the medical examination from the examining physician to a licensed nurse practitioner or licensed physicians assistant who is familiar with ANSI/ANS-3.4 or ANSI/ANS-15.4, as applicable, and the activities required of an operator or senior operator. ANSI/ANS-3.4, endorsed in RG 1.134, is not applicable to TRTRs. ANSI/ANS-15.4, which is specific to research and test reactors and historically used for medical qualifications should be referenced.
Explicitly recognize ANSI/ANS-15.4 as acceptable guidance for medical qualifications, while clarifying ANSI/ANS-3.4 provides supplemental information, although not required for research/test reactors.
Consolidated Comments on Draft NUREG -1478 Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors Page 2 Number Section/
Page Comment/Basis Recommendation
- 4.
Section 2.2, Eligibility Requirements and Guidelines C.
Licensing Medical Requirements, ES 2.2 Page 3 of 11 Draft NUREG-1478 Revision 3 introduces the option that the examining physician may delegate portions of the medical examination to a licensed nurse practitioner or licensed physicians assistant who is familiar with ANSI/ANS-3.4 or ANSI/ANS-15.4, as applicable, and the activities required of an operator or senior operator. However, it also states that the physician has the ultimate responsibility for certifying that the medical examination was conducted in accordance with the standard and that the applicant meets the medical requirements. The ambiguity in the way this is written leads to disputes on whether nurse practitioners (NPs) or physician assistants (PAs) qualify.
Change NUREG-1478 Rev. 3 to reference the definition for physician in 10 CFR 55.4 to clarify who can certify the medical exam on NRC Form 396.
- 5.
Location in NUREG-1478 Revision 2:
Section ES-202, G1, Page 6 of 8 The Temporary Medical Condition provision allowing administrative suspension of operator licenses for temporary medical conditions was removed or inadvertently omitted in this draft revision, while the term, Temporary Medical Condition, is still defined in the glossary (G 8-page 2 of 3).
Additionally, the glossary definition adds a new 90-day timeframe that was not specified in NUREG-1478, Revision 2.
This causes confusion as to whether the administrative suspension of licenses for temporary medical conditions without NRC action is still allowed.
Reinstate explicit language from Rev. 2 allowing administrative suspension of licenses for temporary medical conditions without NRC action and clarify duration limits if intended.
- 6.
Section 2.2, SRO Instant Licensing Requirement, ES 2.2 Page 5 of 11 Rev. 3 retains a one-year residency requirement for SRO instant licensing, which is arbitrary and not supported by ANSI/ANS-15.4.
Remove the one-year residency requirement for SRO-instant applicants.
RG 2.2 endorses ANS 15.1 for the development of Technical Specifications (TS) for Research Reactors. TS for research reactors contain the guidance for Consolidated Comments on Draft NUREG -1478 Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors Page 3 Number Section/
Page Comment/Basis Recommendation criteria on determining applicants for operator licensing maintaining flexibility for facilities to certify applicant readiness under 10 CFR 55.31.
- 7.
Location in NUREG-1478 Revision 2:Section ES-201 Preexamination Activities, Page 2 of 14 Rev. 2 provision stating the same examiner should not administer a candidates retake exam has been removed. This change could bias results and undermine fairness.
Reinstate requirement that retake exams be administered by a different examiner to ensure impartiality.
- 8.
Section 2.2, C.
Licensing Medical Requirements, ES 2.2, Page 4 of 11.
NUREG-1478 states that initial license applicants are generally expected to be examined and certified as fit (on NRC Form 396) no more than 6 months before application submittal. If more than 6 months have passed since the date of an applicants last medical examination or fitness certification on NRC Form 396, the applicant and facility licensee shall certify in writing in the Comments section of NRC Form 398 that the applicant has not developed any physical or mental condition that would be reportable under 10 CFR 55.25, Incapacitation because of disability or illness.
The 6-month medical review period specified in the NUREG is not consistent with 10 CFR Part 55.21 that states, "An applicant for a license shall have a medical examination by a physician. A licensee shall have a medical examination by a physician every two years. The physician shall determine that the applicant or licensee meets the requirements of § 55.33(a)(1)." The NUREG imposes an excessively restrictive requirement on the licensee, more than what the regulation Remove the six-month medical certification requirement from NUREG-1478, as it is not contained in 10 CFR Part
- 55. Align guidance with current regulatory requirements, allowing facilities to certify applicant medical fitness based solely on regulatory standards and facility processes without imposing additional time-based restrictions.
Consolidated Comments on Draft NUREG -1478 Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors Page 4 Number Section/
Page Comment/Basis Recommendation requires. This is unnecessarily burdensome for universities and should be changed to align with the timeframe allowed for in the regulation language.
- 9.
Section 3.0, Operating Tests, G.
Requirements, ES 3.1 Page 4 of 19 Draft NUREG-1478 states, "There will be some questions for which the answer will not be known until the examiner is on site (especially for modified systems and procedures). In addition, any questions asked to follow up on perceived applicant weaknesses must be documented for subsequent review and grading purposes. The examiner must remember to document the safety significance of the weakness" which changed from Revision 2 where it stated, "There will be some questions for which the answer will not be known until the examiner is on site (especially for modified systems and procedures). In addition, any questions asked to follow up on perceived applicant weaknesses must be documented for subsequent review and grading purposes." The change to document safety significance of the weakness adds subjective interpretation and increases the potential for grading disputes.
Provide clarifying information, like objective criteria or examples, for documenting the safety significance of a weakness to avoid overly subjective judgments. This would allow the facility to have discussions on the objective being examined and avoid potential confusion.
Consolidated Comments on Draft NUREG -1478 Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors Page 5 Number Section/
Page Comment/Basis Recommendation
- 10.
Section 3.0 Operating Tests G.
Requirements, ES 3.1-Page 7 of 19 The startup should include performance or discussion of pre-startup checks (which provide a good opportunity for systems-related discussions), startup of the facility to a critical condition, ascension to a typically maintained power level, and placing control of the reactor in automatic (if available). During past startup exams, there has been confusion on what "typically maintained power level" means.
Define 'typical power' as a nominal power level regularly authorized and operated by the facility. Allow flexibility when safety, technical specifications, or administrative operational constraints (such as xenon preclusion limits, thermal transients, or facility-imposed administrative power caps) preclude operation at certain levels.
This ensures consistent application across diverse research and test reactors while avoiding undue burden on facilities.
- 11.
Section 4.0, Written Examination Scoring, Form ES-4.1-1, Written Examination Cover Sheet, ES 4.1 Page 6 of 12 Rev. 3 introduces requirement for 70% overall score AND 70% in each category, which could be mathematically inconsistent if questions are deleted from a category.
Retain requirement of 70% per category only, or clarify how overall score interacts with category scores when questions are deleted and explain what the 70% overall indicates.
- 12.
Section 7.0 Fuel-Handling Examinations, ES 7.1 Page 2 of 3 The time to submit Form 398 increased from 14 days before the exam to 20 days before the exam. This is overly restrictive, inconsistent with other NRC documents, and uses days (not working days) which provides an example of inconsistency in how the timeframe using "days" is used in this document.
Retain the timeframe of 14 days provided in Revision 2.
Consolidated Comments on Draft NUREG -1478 Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors Page 6 Number Section/
Page Comment/Basis Recommendation
- 13.
Section 7.1 SRO Limited to Fuel Handling -
Examinations, Pages ES 7.1, Page 1 of 3 and Section 7.2, SRO Limited to Fuel Handling, Examination Preparation, ES 7.2 Page 1 of 9 Rev. 3 discusses provisions for shutdown facilities in the Purpose section but left ambiguity regarding fuel-handling scope and applicability in these sections.
Clarify scope of LSRO exams for shutdown facilities, including limits on fuel handling responsibilities.
- 14. -
Equation Sheet, ES 4.1, Page 8 of 12 Current exam equation sheet doesn't match NUREG-1478.
For example, shielding attenuation was not included in last revision of NUREG-1478.
Ensure that NUREG-1478 equation sheet is updated to match the current exam equation sheet being administered.