NRC Generic Letter 1987-16

NRC Generic Letter 1987-016: Transmittal of NUREG-1262, Answers to Questions at Public Meetings Regarding Implementation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55 on Operators' Licenses

ML031150572
Person / Time
Site:	Beaver Valley, Millstone, Hatch, Monticello, Calvert Cliffs, Dresden, Davis Besse, Peach Bottom, Browns Ferry, Salem, Oconee, Mcguire, Nine Mile Point, Palisades, Palo Verde, Perry, Indian Point, Fermi, Kewaunee, Catawba, Harris, Wolf Creek, Saint Lucie, Point Beach, Oyster Creek, Watts Bar, Hope Creek, Grand Gulf, Cooper, Sequoyah, Byron, Pilgrim, Arkansas Nuclear, Braidwood, Susquehanna, Summer, Prairie Island, Columbia, Seabrook, Brunswick, Surry, Limerick, North Anna, Turkey Point, River Bend, Vermont Yankee, Crystal River, Haddam Neck, Ginna, Diablo Canyon, Callaway, Vogtle, Waterford, Duane Arnold, Farley, Robinson, Clinton, South Texas, San Onofre, Cook, Comanche Peak, Yankee Rowe, Maine Yankee, Quad Cities, Humboldt Bay, La Crosse, Big Rock Point, Rancho Seco, Zion, Midland, Bellefonte, Fort Calhoun, FitzPatrick, McGuire, LaSalle, 05000000, Zimmer, Fort Saint Vrain, Washington Public Power Supply System, Shoreham, Satsop, Trojan, Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant, Clinch River, Crane
Issue date:	11/12/1987
From:	Miraglia F J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-1262 GL-87-016, NUDOCS 8712030029
Download: ML031150572 (188)

MEMORANDUM FOR: NRR Project ManagersFROM: Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.Associate Director for ProjectsOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF NUREG-1262, "ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AT PUBLICMEETINGS REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE 10, CODE OFFEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 55 ON OPERATORS' LICENSES",GENERIC LETTER 87-16Enclosed is Generic Letter 87-16 which transmits NUREG-1262. NUREG-1262represents office practices and policies on how the staff will implement therule governing Operators' Licenses and Conforming Amendments (10 CFR 55 and50). The views expressed in the report are intended as guidance, and aremeant to reflect the rule and its statement of considerations. The viewsare not intended to interpret the rule or any of its provisions, nor doesthe document increase or decrease any requirements of the rule.The generic letter does not require that any actions be taken by the ProjectManagers; it is being distributed for information only.Frank J. Miraglia, Jr.Associate Director for ProjectsOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Generic Letter 87-DISTRIBUTION:Central FilesOLB ReadingJAWachtelLAWiensJNHannonJWRoeFJMiragliaRStorostecki T ROFC :ADTi -:ADRMRR .: :_____~~- -------- --- --- -- --- ------- --A-__-______________-___-__________-______NAME :RStar5 tecki:FMi gla : :aDATE :12N E87 :11/ &87_ .

-2 -In addition to the above changes from the original answers described inNUREG-1262, as of the date of this letter NRC involvement in requalificationexaminations is under review, and changes to the guidance presented at thepublic meetings is being considered. Therefore, answers given in the sectiontitled "Requalification and Renewal' should be considered subject to change.If you have anyyour facility.questions, you should contact the NRC Project Manager for

Sincerely,Original SI..., hrVi~2 J. ., ,I rFrank J. MiragliaAssociate Director for ProjectsOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

NUREG 1262DISTRIBUTION:Central FilesJAWachtelLAWiensJNHannonJWRoeFJMiragliaRStarosteckiA4Ale A"? 0S4o7 e-7,1-4 .DW/nereg 1262/JERRY3OLB:DLPQJAWachtel :kw*9/28/87OLB:DLPQLAWiens9/28/87OLB:DLPQ*JNHannon9/29/87DIR:DLPQJWRoe*10/7/87ADI .NRRR~tarosteckilq/q /87* ~lia*See previous concurrencesOFFICIAL RECORD COPY UNTED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONWASHINGTON. D. C. 055November 12, 1987TO ALL POWER AND NON-POWER REACTOR LICENSEES AND APPLICANTS FOR LICENSESGentlemen:

SUBJECT: TRANSMITTAL OF NUREG-1262, "ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AT PUBLICMEETING REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE 10, CODE OFFEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 55 ON OPERATORS' LICENSES"(GENERIC LETTER 87-16)On March 25, 1987, the Commission published a final rule governing Operators'Licenses and Conforming Amendments (10 CFR 55 and 50), with an effective dateof May 26, 1987. From April 9 to April 20, 1987, the staff conducted a seriesof four public meetings to discuss the implementation of this final rule,associated Regulatory Guides, and Examiner Standards. These meetings wereannounced via Generic Letter 87-07, which also transmitted an advanced copyof the final rule.The purpose of the meetings was to discuss the implementation of the requirementsof the rule and related issues. At each meeting, a formal presentation by thestaff was followed by an open forum in which the staff responded first toquestions that had been submitted in writing in advance of the meeting, andthen to questions raised from the floor. Announcements were made at eachmeeting that any questions that remained unanswered at the conclusion of themeeting could be left with the staff in writing for a subsequent response;and that the questions and answers from all of the meetings would be consolidatedin a NUREG and disseminated to interested parties.Accordingly, verbatim transcripts of each meeting were made, and these questionsand answers, together with those submitted at the close of each meeting, werecollected and edited as NUREG-1262. This NUREG is appended to this letter.NUREG-1262 represents office practices and policies on how the staff willimplement the rule. The views expressed in the report are intended as guidance,and are meant to reflect the rule and its statement of considerations. Theviews are not intended to interpret the rule or any of its provisions, nordoes the document increase or decrease any requirements of the rule.The preface to the NUREG states that NRC staff discussions held since thefinal public meeting indicated several areas in which the answers given mighthave been misconstrued or subject to misinterpretation. It goes on to statethat any such answers were revised during preparation of the NUREG, and thatsuch answers were identified in the report by an asterisk next to the questionnumbe In addition to the above changes from the original answers described inNUREG-1262, as of the date of this letter NRC involvement in requalificationexaminations is under review, and changes to the guidance presented at thepublic meetings is being considered. Therefore, answers given in the sectiontitled "Requalification and Renewal" should be considered subject to change.If you have any questions, you should contact the NRC Project Manager foryour facility.

Sincerely,Frank .iragli r.Associate Director for ProjectsOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

NUREG-1262

%7<iROUTING AND TRASMITIAL SUP .9/26/87T (Name, ofiesymbol, roo b Initi s DatbUilding. Agency/Post) mnmDtI. Jerry Wachtel -Concurrence_-c2.3 Len Wiens -Concurrence .q'- .John Hannon -Concurrence4. Jack Roe-- Concurrence-S._Rich Starostecki -Concurrence_ on -File: ' Note a rd Retu m wr 4prvtForpaearanco--- Per ConversathonRequested for Correction. Prepare Replat _,rub -__for Your Infotrmition-,_ See Me -~ .Coordintio Investigate Signature-6.Frank Miraglia -Concurrence/Sigature -Susie. .t3fctk- ei s

SUBJECT: . TRANSM!ITTAL-OF NUREG 1262, "ANSWERS TO-QUESTIONS AT PUBLIC MEETINGS REGARDING.-IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE 10, CODE OF-FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 55 ON1OPERATORS'LICENSES"tDO NOT use this form as a RECORDJ (N me. rg. lear nces and sim ilar actionsFROM: (Name, Org. sYmbol. Agency/Post) Room No.-Bldg...Jerry Wachtel. ;.>- 0fp-83>1-:OPTIONAL FORM 41 (Rev. 7-76)* *PO :1982 0- 381 -29( -( --- Pftsc ibid bY GSA:"'UR (41 CMGSA1r--_ r-.P .u : .A_ , . NUREG-1262uniwedwML rDaled.JA: Answers to Questions atPublic Meetings RegardingImplementation of Title 10,Code of Federal Regulations,Part 55 on Operators' LicensesU.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommissionOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation~p~RE:.-.

NOTICEAvailability of Reference Materials Cited In NRC PublicationsMost documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the following sources:1. The NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street, N.W.Washington, DC 205552. The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Post Office Box 37082,Washington, DC 20013-70823. The National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publications,It is not intended to be exhaustive.Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Docu-ment Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspectionand Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and Investigation notices;Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant andlicensee documents and correspondence.The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO SalesProgram: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC-sponsored conference proceedings, andNRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides, NRC regulations In the Code ofFederal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission IssuancesDocuments available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG seriesreports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the AtomicEnergy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items,such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal andstate legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.Documents such as theses, dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and non-NRC conferenceproceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.Single copies of NRC draft reports are available free, to the extent of supply, upon written requestto the Division of Information Support Services, Distribution Section, U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington, DC 20555.Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory processare maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are availablethere for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copyrighted and may bepurchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from theAmerican National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 1001 NUREG-1262Answers to Questions atPublic Meetings RegardingImplementation of Title 10,Code of Federal Regulations,.Part 55 on Operators' LicensesManuscript Completed: June 1987Date Published: November 1987Division of Licensee Performance and Quality EvaluationOffice of Nuclear Reactor RegulationU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555 ABSTRACTThis document presents questions and answers based on the transcripts of fourpublic meetings (and from written questions submitted after the meetings)conducted from April 9 to April 20, 1987 by the staff of the U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission. The meetings discussed implementation of the Commission'sfinal rule governing Operators' Licenses and Conforming Amendments (10 CFRParts 55 and 50). The rule became effective May 26, 1987 and is intended toclarify the regulations for issuing licenses to operators and senior operators;revise the requirements and scope of written examinations and operating testsfor operators and senior operators, require a simulation facility; clarifyprocedures for administering requalification examinations; and describe theform and content for operator license applications.iii TABLE OF CONTENTSA S R C ........... .. .......... ...... .PREFACE .............................................................INTRODUCTION ................ ..ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMS .................... ' 'GENERAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO 10 CFR PART 55 ..........................Background to the Regulation ....................................Definitions (Subpart A, Section 55.4) ...........................Communications (Subpart A, Section 55.5) .General 'Exemptions (Subpart B, Section 55.13).APPLICATIONS ...................... .. .... ..... .....................-How to Apply (Subpart'D, Section 55.31; NRC Form'398) .............Medical Examination (Subpart C, Section 55.21) ..................Certification (Subpart C, Section 55.23; NRC Form 396) ..........Incapacitation Because of Disability or Illness (Subpart C,Section 55.25)Documentation (Subpart C, Section 55.27) ........................Regulatory Guide 1.8 and ANSI/ANS 3.1 ......... .WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS AND OPERATING TESTS .........................General Issues (Including Learning Objectives and ExaminationQuestion Bank) ...........'Written Examinations and Operating Tests (Statement ofConsiderations) ...............................................Written Examination: Operators (Subpart E, Section 55.41) .......Written Examination: Senior Operators (Subpart E, Section55.43) ................... ............Operating Tests: Content (Subpart E, Section 55.45(a)) .........Waiver of Examination and Test Requirements (Subpart E,Section 55.47) ................................................SIMULATION FACILITIES ................................................Written Examinations and Operating Tests: Implementation(Subpart E, Section 55.45(b)) .................................Regulatory Guide 1.149 ..........................................ANSI/ANS 3.5, 1985 ..............................................Simulation Facility Certification (Including PerformanceTesting, NRC Form 474, NUREG-1258) ............................-Pageiiiviiixxvi1133471819212222313133353840414242505255v TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)PageLICENSES ............................................................. 68Special Senior Operator Licenses (Including InstructorCertification) ........................................ 68"Actively Performing the Functions of an Operator or SeniorOperator" ..................................................... 71Conditions of Licenses (Subpart F, Section 55.53) ..... .......... 73REQUALIFICATION AND RENEWAL ........... ................................. 82Requalification and Renewal (Statement of'Considerations) ....... 82Renewal of Licenses (Subpart H, Section 55.57) ..... ............. 82Requalification (Subpart H, Section 55.59) ...................... 88CONFORMING AMENDMENTS IN 10 CFR PART 50 ... 115OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINER STANDARDS (NUREG-102i).117REFERENCES ........................................................... 122APPENDICESA Generic Letter 87-07 .A-1B 10 CFR Parts 50 and 55 -- Operators' Licenses andConforming Amendments .B-1C Regulatory Guide 1.134 -- Medical Evaluation of LicensedPersonnel for Nuclear Power Plants .C-1D Regulatory Guide 1.149 -- Nuclear Power Plant SimulationFacilities for Use in Operator License Examinations. D-1E Regulatory Guide 1.8 -- Qualification and Training forPersonnel for Nuclear Power Plants .E-1vi 1%-)I PREFACEOn March 25, 1987, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission published in theFederal Register (52 FR 9453) revisions to 10 CFR 55 to meet NRC responsibili-ties under Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The rule,Operators' Licenses and Conforming Amendments, became effective on May 26, 1987and is intended to:1. clarify the regulations for issuing licenses to operators and senioroperators;,.2. revise the requirements and scope of written examinations andoperating tests for operators and senior operators;3. require a simulation facility;4. clarify procedures for administering requalification examinations;and,5. describe the form and content for operator license applications.From April 9, 1987 to April 20, 1987, the NRC staff held four public meetingsto discuss implementation of the requirements of this rule and related issues.Those attending asked numerous questions which the staff answered. This docu-ment presents the answers to those questions taken from the transcripts of thefour meetings, as well as to written questions which were submitted at the con-clusion of the meetings. The-questions are grouped to eliminate excessiveduplication. However, where different questions addressed similar concerns,they were retained in this report if they provided clarification or a differentperspective. Questions related to Regulatory Guides, industry standards, andother documents associated with the rule are included with the applicable por-tion of the rule.This report attempts to retain the intent, tone, and nuance of each questionwithout reproducing each verbatim from the transcripts. In-some cases, ques-tions submitted or recorded by the transcriber contained unintended or inad-vertent factual errors. When identified, these errors were corrected. Simi-larly, verbatim answers in the transcripts have been edited where necessaryfor clarity and conciseness.NRC staff discussions held since the final public meeting indicate that theanswers provided to questions in the area of "Conditions of Licenses," spe-cifically the proficiency requirements in 10 CFR 55.53(e), may have conveyedthe impression that the staff advocated minimum shift staffing, and that thismight have been-construed to be counterproductive to safety. The apparentconfusion stems from the definition of "Actively performing the functions ofan operator or senior operator" in Section 55.4 of the regulation, whichappears to tie the proficiency issue to a minimum staffing requirement in thefacility licensee's technical specifications. 'The intent of the 10 CFR 55.53(e)requirements regarding maintenance of active operator or senior operator statusis that personnel maintain proficiency by actively performing the functions andduties of the licensed operator positions. Because facility licensees assignto a shift more than the minimum number of operators required by their Techni-cal Specifications, concerns have been raised since the public meetings thatvii 10 CFR 55.53(e), if implemented in the manner discussed at these meetings,might discourage utilities from augmenting shift crews.It is not NRC's intent to discourage augmenting shift crews; clearly, this.practice can result in a significant safety enhancement. However, assigninga large number of operators to a shift could reduce the range of responsibili-ties of any one operator to a level where sufficient experience in directing -shift operations and/or in manipilating controls is not being obtained. NRC'sintent in 10 CFR 55.53(e) is that operators taking credit for watchstanding onshift to maintain an active license engage meaningfully and fully in the func-tions and duties of the positions required by the Technical Specifications.The intent is not to have licensees augment a shift with a contingent of opera-tors whose main purpose is to acquire the minimum number of watches to meet10 CFR 55.53(e) requirements. Their role is to fulfill the duties that thefacility licensee judges are necessary and prudent for safe operations.Facility licenses can take credit for more than the minimum number of watch-standers required by Technical Specifications provided that there are admini-strative controls which assure that functions and duties are divided and rotatedin a manner which provides each watchstander meaningful and significant oppor-tunity to maintain proficiency in the performance of the functions of an opera-tor and/or senior operator as appropriate. Normally, more than one additionalwatchstander at each Technical Specification position would not be consideredacceptable with respect to the proficiency issue.Any answers to questions on this subject that were raised during the publicmeetings, and which might have conveyed the impression that NRC advocated suchminimum shift staffing, have been revised in this report to reflect the staff'sposition as clarified above. Such answers'are identified in'this report by anasterisk next to the question number.Similarly, NRC staff discussions held during the preparation of this report haveidentified a number of answers given during the public meetings which either mis-stated an NRC policy or may have been open to misinterpretation. These answershave been revised for this report and are identified by an asterisk next to thequestion number.The views expressed in this report represent office practices and policies onhow the staff will implement the rule. These views are intended as guidance andare meant to reflect the rule and its statement of considerations. The viewsexpressed are not intended to interpret the rule or any of its provisions. Al-though any request for formal interpretation should be sought from the Office ofGeneral Counsel under 10 CFR 55.6, the NRC staff may provide informal guidanceas needed and as appropriate. This report does not impose any requirements onfacility licensees nor does it replace or supersede any existing regulations.II INTRODUCTIONThis rule (10 CFR 55) represents a significant move toward less prescriptiveregulatory requirements for utilities that have accredited training programsand acceptable simulation facilities. It attempts to differentiate clearlybetween training programs sponsored through industry initiatives by the Nuclearviii Utility Management and Resources Committee (NUMARC) and the Institute for Nu-clear Power Operations (INPO), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licens-ing and examination requirements. One of the most important changes to theregulation is the flexibility it affords licensees in reviewing the content ofcontinuing training (requalification) programs, and tailoring those programs tothe needs of the job incumbents. This degree of flexibility represents a majorchange from the way NRC has implemented regulations in the past in that itrelies on industry initiatives to provide both training and qualifications forlicense applicants. With this rulemaking NRC has moved out of the area ofspecifying training'program content and qualifications 'for instructors.INPO AccreditationIt is a precedent-setting move, and NRC is pleased that the industry has takenthis initiative to improve its training of licensed operators and others.Although moving out of the training areas potentially leaves a void, particu-larly as it relates to some of the more prescriptive requirements used in thepast, NRC has placed great importance in the INPO accreditation process. In*its review of INPO accreditation criteria, the staff has concluded that theyare equivalent to NRC's. If a utility implements an accredited training pro-gram, the accreditation will constitute the basis for NRC acceptance of thatcertification from a responsible utility officer, as indicated in GenericLetter 87-07.The Appeal ProcessNRC is also implementing a change to the appeal process for operator licensecandidates to clarify the process. The following figures describe the proposedappeal' process.Figure 1. NRC's appeal process has always permitted both informal reviews andhearing rights on issues which were in dispute between the candidate and theexaminer.' Informal reviews were conducted by regional management and, whenrequested,-further review was conducted at NRC headquarters. The exercise ofhearing rights, described in 10 CFR Part 2 of the Commission's regulations,becomes operable should there be a license application denial.Figure 2.- Informal reviews and hearing rights are available to the candidatefor any adverse action, whether for a failure of the written examination oroperating test, or for an application rejected for other reasons. The informalreview will go first to the regional Division Director responsible for theoperator licensing function, and then, should the candidate so choose, to theDirector, Division-of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation (DLPQE).In the past, on occasion,'NRC has not completed action on appeals in a timelymanner and, in some cases, candidates have not submitted information that isnecessary to review an appeal.. We have tightened up the schedule by allowing20 days for the candidate to decide to appeal and 30 days for informal manage-ment review..'Figure 3. Those schedules will work as follows. The day that the candidategets the notification letter of a failure or notification of a rejected appli-cation, we have called day zero. He has 20 days to decide whether to requestan informal review.ix If the candidate does not act within that 20-day period, the notification letterautomatically converts to a Proposed Denial of License Application, which willavail him of-hearing rights under 10 CFR Part 2 of the Commission's regulations.If he requests an informal review, he submits the information to the responsibleregional division director, who reviews it, and either sustains or overturns theexamination failure or the rejected application.If it is sustained such that the situation is still adverse to the candidate,he may, then, request another informal review. The-second letter he receivedwould, in the manner similar to the first, become a proposed denial after20 days. If, during the 20-day period after he receives the letter from theregional Division Director, he decides to ask for an informal review, he sub-mits the requested information to the Director, DLPQE, where another reviewof the merits of his contentions would be conducted.If the candidate's examination failure or application rejection is sustained, aNotice of Proposed Denial of License Application will be issued. The candidatecan then request a hearing under 10 CFR Part 2.When a Proposed Denial has become effective, the applicant can choose to acceptthe Proposed Denial, waive his hearing rights, and have the denial become final.It takes an affirmative action by the candidate to waive his hearing rightsthrough an NRC form letter which provides information about the date of hisexamination, his docket number, and the like. He simply signs the letter andreturns it to NRC.Or, the applicant may request a hearing. In order to implement the hearingprocess, he would have to notify the NRC Office of General Counsel. The Exam-iner Standards will contain sample letters and procedures that describe thisprocess. The 80-day time frame for this process does not include mailing time.We will be using certified mail, request return receipts, and will place thecorrespondence associated with the appeal in the docket file.In addition, we will provide copies of all relevant correspondence to the facil-ity licensee's authorized representative who signed the application. This willbe done at the time we mail it out to the individual. The reason for this isthat the authorized representative is a part of this process, in that he cer-tified the completion of training. Further, the facility reviewed a writtenexam and provided comments on the exam and the answers.Figure 4. This figure shows the proposed denial/hearing process, beginning withthe administration of the examination. NRC will complete the grading, make aninitial determination within 30 days, and mail the results to the candidate.If the candidate requests an informal review, he must send in a complete infor-mation package to the responsible regional division director. He has 20 daysto decide to make the request, and 10 more days to submit the information. Theregional division director would review the submittal and make a determinationwithin 30 days. If the regional division director sustains the failure or theapplication rejection, the candidate could at that point request an informalreview by the Director, DLPQE, a hearing, or accept the results. If the candi-date accepts the results, NRC would issue a final denial and put it into hisx docket file. After the required length of time from the date of final denial(immediately in the case of an application denial) he could start the reappli-cation process.Alternatively, if the candidate requests an informal review by the Director,DLPQE, he must submit the requested information within the prescribed time.The Director, DLPQE, would make a determination within 30 days. If the Direc-tor sustains the failure or the application rejection, NRC would issue a pro-posed denial. At that time the candidate would have the option of requestinga hearing or accepting the results.This process is more formal than past practice. A candidate may not reapplyunder the provisions of 10 CFR 55.12 until he has a final denial in hand. Theonly way he can get a.final denial is either to agree with the staff's proposeddenial, waive his hearing rights and accept the outcome, or go to hearing, wherean independent determination will be made in his case. The types of hearingsunder Part 2 may vary from informal to formal adjudicatory hearings. It is thecandidate who controls the process. It is the staff's responsibility to ensurethat the candidate understands his rights. EThe review process-as outlined is currently under staff review for ways in whichit can be expedited.xi INFORMAL APPEAL PROCESS AND HEARING RIGHTSCan be stopped at any point by candidate accepting (proposed denial and waiving hearing rights.Candidate may reapply following examination failure onlyafter application finally denied under 10 CFR 55.35.-Candidate accepts Proposed Denial-Hearing decision -Final DenialCandidte may reapply at any time for rejection of (application for reasons other than examination failure.Figure 1 INFORMAL APPEAL PROCESS AND HEARING RIGHTSProcess has been -clarified to assure candidateunderstands his rightsApplicable to any decision by the staff adverse -to the candidatex.Applicant always has :the right to 'request--informal regional management reviewX- informal headquarters management review-formal hearing before an administrative judgeSchedule specified to ensure timely action upon Cinformal review-20 days for candidate to decide-30 days for informal reviewFigure 2 INFO:RMALAPPEALPROCESSAND HEARINGP I C:: HT ICA _ _A_ L AP_ _P ..P_ .S. S AND .% W a a I .-.0 DAYSNotificationof Examinationfailureor Applicationrejection(+ 20 DAYSRequestinformalreviewby RegionX + 60 DAYSNotificationof Region's review results+ 80 DAYSRequestinformalreviewby Headquarters+120DAYSNotificationof ProposedLicenseDenialc+140DAYSRequest for HearingNOTE:Does not include mailing timesFigure 3 Figure 4PROMED LWCMS! *NzAMU1fAi "s4;= ti +40t= t4+ 40t4= +30tocII....I 7,cN01T CMIsATE A AV NMI -MEMNS Al AD POINT 1 IRE 'IN .WmL "Rfis... ..

ACRONYMS AND INITIALISMSANS American Nuclear SocietyANSI American National Standards InstituteBOP Balance of PlantBWR Boiling Water ReactorCE Combustion EngineeringCRD- Control Rod Drive.DLPQE Division of Licensee Performance and Quality EvaluationEOP Emergency Operating ProcedureES Examiner StandardFSAR Final Safety Analysis ReportGE General EmergencyIE Office of Inspection and Enforcement (NRC)INPO Institute of Nuclear Power OperationsK/A Knowledge and AbilitiesLER Licensee Event ReportNLO Nonlicensed OperatorNRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionNRR Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRC)NTOL Near-Term Operating LicenseNUMARC Nuclear Utility Management and Resources CommitteeOJT On-the-Job TrainingOMB Office of Management and BudgetPWR Pressurized Water ReactorReg Guide Regulatory GuideRG Regulatory GuideRequal RequalificationRO Reactor OperatorRWP Radiation Work PermitSAE Site Area EmergencySAT Systematic (or Systems) Approach to TrainingSFEP Simulation Facility Evaluation ProcedureSRO Senior Reactor OperatorSTA Shift Technical AdvisorTech Specs Technical SpecificationsTSD Training System DevelopmentUE Unusual Eventxvi GENERAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO 10 CFR PART 55 Background to the RegulationQ. 1. The Supplemental Information to NRC Generic Letter 87-07 states that,"These rules supersede all current regulations for operator licenses." Aretraining requirements from Mr. H. R. Denton's March 28, 1980 letter supersededby the new rule?*A. The rule supersedes all requirements where those requirements are lessrestrictive. Where individual commitments are more restrictive, you must fol-low those commitments until you change them.In some cases that change may require an amendment to the license. In othercases it can be done by yourself under 10 CFR Part 50.59, and you simply informus of what you're doing. That would include any change within your authorityto do under Part 50.59 that does not constitute a reduction in the effective-ness of the program, because it's being done to conform to the rule. Addition-ally, as a matter of-interest, we are no longer, under the rule, permitted tocertify instructors.Q. 2. Will the revision to 10 CFR 55 cancel NUREG-0737, NUREG-0094, and theDenton letter? If so, will references to these documents be removed fromNUREG-1021?A. NUREG-1021, "Operator Examiner Licensing Standards," has been reviewed andthe items left are required by the Regulation, or by Regulatory Guide 1.8. Theitems from NUREG-0737 and NUREG-0094 that are superseded have only to do withoperator licensing. Items from Regulatory Guide 1.8 Revision 2, will be incor-porated into NUREG-1021 when Regulatory Guide 1.8 becomes effective on March 31,1988. Some items may be very similar to what was there in the past, due toNUREG-0737 or NUREG-0094."' For'example, four years of power plant experience areincorporated into NUREG-0737 andbDenton's letter, and it's still in RegulatoryGuide 1.8 and NURtG-1021.Q. 3. Is it true that the NUREG-0737 requirements being incorporated in 10CFR Part 55 are only those that relate to operator training and licensing?A. The requirements pertain only to operator licensing, not training.Q. 4. We also make commitments in NUREG-0737 for training and mitigating coredamage of other work groups. Also, there is training related to STAs. For in-stance, Reg Guide 1.8 talks'about the number of shifts that an STA must serve.So, nothing in this regulation affects these commitments even though there issome reference to it?A. Yes, that's correct. It does not modify those prior commitments regardingtraining for STAs and other work groups.*H. R. Denton, NRC, Letter to All Power Reactor Applicants and Licensees.Subject: Qualification of Reactor Operators,. March 28, 1980.NUREG-12621 Q. 5. If NUREG-0737 is still applicable in areas not applicable to regulationsfor operator licenses, are you going to publish a NUREG that supersedesNUREG-0737 in those areas?A. No, we'll not issue a new NUREG that applies to the areas that have notbeen superseded.Q. 6. Are experience requirements in NUREG-1021 for the RO and the SRO super-seded by this change?A. No. NUREG-1021 will be revised to'reflect the'changes that have beenadopted in ANSI 3.1 as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.8. We anticipate thesechanges will be made in about one year.Q. 7. Can licensees file an FSAR amendment for Commission approval to modifyexisting initial licensing and requalification'training programs?A. Yes. See Generic Letter 87-07 for guidance on how to file such FSARamendments.Q. 8. What other means are available for filing for program changes?A. You can write a letter and say that you have substituted an accreditedtraining program, which is performance-based, for the previously NRC-approvedprogram, and indicate the date(s) your new program was accredited. See GenericLetter 87-07 for further guidance on how to submit such a letter.Q. 9. Our FSAR commits us to ANSI/ANS-3.1-1978.A. Recall that this Regulation and associated documents supersede all priorrequirements. The rule identifies the Regulatory Guides that are part of therulemaking package. The implementation of Reg Guide 1.8, which endorses, withexceptions, ANSI/ANS 3.1, 1981, takes effect March 31, 1988, to allow for aphase-in period.Q. 10. Will we do anything different in the inspection of requalification ac-tivities due to the end of the two-year moratorium in INPO accreditation? Hasthe new rule been timed to coincide with the end of the two-year period?A. This issue is currently under advisement by the Commission. No decisionhas been made to date. Publication of the regulation was independent of thetwo-year period.Q. 11. Is failure to meet an INPO program requirement that was in the benchmark-accredited program grounds for issuance of a Notice of Violation?A. Failure to meet INPO Guidelines, or loss of accreditation status throughaction taken by the National Nuclear Accreditation Board, will result in furtherevaluation by NRC. Such failure in itself would not be grounds for a Noticeof Violation. However, per the "Policy Statement on Training and Qualificationof Nuclear Power Plant Personnel" (50 FR 11147), "Nothing in this Policy State-ment shall limit the authority or responsibility of the NRC to follow up onoperational events or place any limit on NRC's enforcement authority whenregulatory requirements are not met."NUREG-12622 Definitions (Subpart A, Section 55.4)Q. 12. Why did you change terms from "reactivity manipulations" to "controlmanipulations?"A. For the purposes of Part 55, "controls" refers to the controls that affectreactivity or power.Q. 13. By what means are utilities to determine NRC's interpretation of "refer-ence plant" as it applies to multi-unit plants at one site (from the same vendorand vintage)? It seems that compliance with Part 55 is contingent on a clearinterpretation of this term.A. The definition of "reference plant" has been provided in Section 55.4 ofthe regulation. Section D, which is the implementation section of RegulatoryGuide 1.149, provides clear guidance for the use of one simulation facility formore than one plant or unit, since each plant has a unique docket number.The greater the similarity between the units, of course, the more likely it isthat you'll be able to submit one certification form for each, identifying anyexceptions as necessary against ANSI/ANS-3.5.If your operators are dual-licensed, certification,. with exceptions, would beconsidered satisfactory for multiple units or plants. If your operators arenot dual-licensed, it is still possible to certify with exceptions, althoughmore work may need to be done to justify acceptability of the simulation facilityfor the conduct of operating tests.Q. 14. In the discussion of the term, "plant-referenced simulator," mentionwas made of the simulator being required to use controlled copies of procedures?What do you mean by the word control?A. Controlled copies refers to procedures that are identical to those you usein the control room of the plant, and are maintained current through adminis-trative control.Q. 15. Do they necessarily have to be up to date to the minute or to the hour?A. We expect them to be up to date.Q. 16. As far as the references go?A. Yes.Q. 17. Revisions?A. Yes.Communications (Subpart A, Section 55.5)*Q. 18. Section 55.5(b)(2)(iv) states that applications and correspondenceshould be submitted to the Regional Administrator. Should copies be submittedto the Regional Section Chief for Operator Licensing?NUREG-12623 A. No. Copies of applications and correspondence under Section 55.5 need notbe sent to the Regional Section Chiefs.Q. 19. Is Form 474 to be submitted directly to the Director of the Office ofNuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) in Washington, D.C., as opposed to RegionalAdministrators?A. Yes. We made a conscious effort to ensure that Form 474 certificationsand the applications for approval be submitted to NRR at Headquarters. Offi-cially, they should be filed in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.4, which spe-cifies that those submittals go to ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington,DC 20555.Q. 20. Who specifically receives the certification referred to in GenericLetter 87-07, the region or headquarters?A. Generic Letter 87-07 describes the form of notification to the NRC, whichbasically is a letter telling us that you have an INPO-accredited program, oran otherwise systematic approach to training at your facility. That submittalis made to NRC Headquarters in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4. It comes to theDirector of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, and is to be submitted inaccordance with 10 CFR 50.4, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555.Q. 21. 10 CFR 50.4 is explicit regarding written communications and volumereduction; however, this part of the regulation seems to be inconsistent with55.5. Which regulation do we follow?A. For communications concerning 10 CFR 55, licensees should follow 55.5.General Exemptions (Subpart B, Section 55.13)Q. 22. With regard to Section 55.13, can you clarify the intent behind theseexemptions?A. Yes. There are certain skills and knowledge that an operator must have,for example, to perform a reactor start up. Hopefully, he would understandsome reactor theory, the effects of subcritical multiplication, and other as-pects of the controls he is manipulating.If the candidate has not completed those phases of training, he should not per-form reactor startup, whether or not it's included in the instruction. That'sthe concept. Now, if in your program, information is transmitted to him suchthat he is prepared to perform the funct'ion because he understands what he isdoing -- he has either had the systems training, or he's had the theory train-ing, or he's gotten it in some other earlier program, such that you are assuredthat the sequence of training is appropriate and the potential for him makingan error is small--then the exemption applies.We don't want to repeat an event which occurred a few years ago where an in-dividual performed a startup soon after entering training. They had a highstartup rate, short-period transient, and the individual did not understandwhat he was doing. He had no appreciation for the procedure because he hadnot received the appropriate on-the-job training for the evolution. There wereNUREG-12624 two concerns with that event: First, they put the plant at risk because some-one manipulating the controls didn't know what he was doing and, second, theyprovided negative training.The sequence of training that leads to on-the-job-performance is important.That approach is consistent, by the way, with the INPO accreditation processand criteria. If you look at the objectives in INPO 85-002 for on-the-jobtraining, you will find that they intend that the person adequately understandthe task before performing it.Q. 23., Can trainees manipulate facility controls under the appropriate super-vision of licensed personnel?A. If their training program leads to a license if carried to completion,they may manipulate controls under instruction if they have been properlytrained. Properly trained means that the sequence of training that has ledthem up to that point is appropriate for the manipulations they perform.Q. 24. In Section 55.13, Item 1, are you using training and educationinterchangeably?A. No. Students at test or research reactors receive training on a reactoras part of a course of study to further their education. They may manipulatecontrols as a part of that course of instruction.Q. 25. With respect to Section 55.13, is someone who is in a course, but froma visiting institution, considered a student? Would a group of high schoolstudents visiting a university for a couple weeks to familiarize themselveswith the school be considered students; that is, could I sit them down at thecontrol panel and tell them what steps to go through to operate the panel?A. Both groups are considered students. There are colleges and universi-ties that have exchange programs with high schools and other institutionswhere you bring students in to attend courses. If these students attend somepart of classroom training, and as a part of that activity they manipulatethe controls, then that's part of their instruction as students.We want to avoid the situation where an individual comes in off the streetwithout any training and starts manipulating the controls.Q. 26. If the facility career path program considers all nonlicensed operatorsto be license candidates, can nonlicensed operators manipulate the controlsunder the direction and in the presence of the reactor operator's senior opera-tor if the candidate is not currently in a hot licensed class?A. No. The candidate must officially be enrolled in the hot license class.Simply being a nonlicensed operator on a designated career path is not suffi-cient to meet the intent without being enrolled in the hot license class.More importantly, the candidate must have completed the necessary classroomor simulator training in accordance with the appropriate training sequenceprior to manipulating the controls of the facility.NUREG-12625 Q. 27. If the operator is in a licensing class, has completed the classroomand the simulator portion, and has an opportunity to take part in an unplannedevolution, can he receive credit toward the training program for thatparticipation?A. Yes.Q. 28. Is a senior operator license required to move fuel in a dry storagearea, or away from the reactor vessel?A. The Regulation doesn't specifically talk about the dry storage area or therefueling pool. It specifically talks about moving fuel in and out of thevessel. If there is a potential for criticality, a senior operator would berequired to be there, as in some instances in a refueling pool. If not, no.Q. 29. Can the licensed senior operator who supervised fuel handling be asenior operator licensed for fuel handling only?A. Yes.NUREG-12626 P; L. T t it, , .APPLICATIONS How to Apply (Subpart D, Section 55.31; NRC Form 398)Q. 30. For a person who has dropped his license, what, if anything, must bedone to later upgrade his status to an SRO beyond meeting the requirements ofan accredited SRO training program?A. He must submit completed Forms 398 and 396 and be examined as an SRO.Q. 31. Has Form 398 changed?A. Not yet, but'a change is in process. It is scheduled to be available forordering by the end of May 1987.Q. 32. Will the current Regional requirements for complete licensee historyon Form 398 for license renewal be reduced to the data included in the OMBapproval, 8150-0090?A. If you have an INPO-accredited program with an acceptable simulationfacility (approved or certified), you can eliminate giving us information underblocks 11, 12, and 13, with the exception of the five significant control mani-pulations. Those still must be included.For renewal, the same rules would apply; there is a block specifically on theForm for renewal. You will only have to provide information on candidate train-ing, education, and experience dating from that last application for a licenserenewal.There will be a block on the Form 398,to indicate the number of on-shift hours,or the experience that has been received. That's all you will have to provideif you meet the two other criteria, i.e., having been INPO accredited, and hav-ing an acceptable simulation facility. If you do not meet these two checkpoints, then you will have to provide the additional data on training, educa-tion, and experience.Q. 33. On Form 398, since test and research reactors don't have simulators,are we required to completely fill out the form?A. What you are currently. doing will continue to be acceptable. For all testand research reactors, there is no change to the process except in terms oflicense operators being re-examined during the six year license.Your requalification programs basically stay the same. We still intend for youto use ANSI 15.4 for selection, training, and medical certification. We'vealso adjusted the requirements for resuming an active license to six hours ofparallel watch-standing.Q. 34. I understand that the designation of the authorized'representative fora facility is changing. Is that true?A. We will accept, as the authorized representative, the senior individual onsite responsible for operations. ISome companies have a vice president on site,some have a site manager. Others may choose to designate someone at a higherNUREG-1262 -7 level, and send it off site to the corporate office. That is acceptable to us.It is also acceptable for it to be done on site. It need not be the sameauthorized representative who requests license amendments under Part 50.There is, under the facility license, only one authorized representative;generally that is somebody at the corporate level, a senior vice president. Ifthat is the authorized representative for the facility, that's who signs Part 50license amendment requests and makes other certifications. We will accept, forPart 55 licensing, the senior person responsible for operations on site.Please note a new requirement on Forms 396, 474, and 398. Above the signaturethere is now a statement that any false statement or omission in this document,including attachments, may be subject to civil and criminal sanctions, to theperson signing it. The statement says: "I certify, under penalty of perjury,that the information in this document and attachments is true and correct."That's why we're adjusting the requirement so that the person on site, who'scloser to the information, can be absolutely sure when attesting to theaccuracy of the information.Q. 35. Is it the intent of the Commission to limit the number of licensees ata facility to a specific position?A. No. It is the facility licensee's decision as to whether to have a personin a licensed position or not, and how many of them are needed. We will notquestion the judgment of facility management.Q. 36. Is it the NRC's intent that the facility licensee identify organiza-tional positions as needing an NRC Operator License beyond those required byTech Specs?A. No. The facility licensee determines the need for whom they want licensedbeyond the requirements of the Technical Specifications. However, all indivi-duals who are licensed must be enrolled in the facility licensee's requalifica-tion program.Q. 37. Does an applicant for a license have to be a member of the shift crewto obtain a license?A. No. An applicant doesn't have to be a member of the shift crew to obtainit, but the facility must certify that there is a need, for him to have a license.Q. 38. In answer to the question: "Are experience requirements in NUREG-1021for the RO and SRO superseded," you said, "no, that there were experience re-quirements that would still apply." Is that still in effect even if you havean accredited program?A. The accreditation process has its own experience requirements identifiedwithin that program. For those facilities which have an INPO-accredited programand a simulation facility acceptable to the NRC, you do not have to designateon the Form 398 those experience requirements for those individuals. You needonly check the blocks associated with the simulation facility and the accreditedprogram.NUREG-12628 Q. 39. Other than as stated in 10 CFR 55, are there any other requirementsthat must be included in initial or continuing training programs-for licensedpersonnel?A. Yes. All previous'iequirements are in effect-unless superseded by the rule,until the training program is accredited.Q.--40.' Is accreditation by INPO's National Academy of Training sufficient?A. As indicated in -Generic Letter 87-07, if it is based on a systems approachto training, it is sufficient. We believe that a program developed followingthe INPO guidelines for continuing operator training for licensed operators,issued in October, constitutes an'adequate basis for concluding that the pro-gram has been developed in accordance with the systems approach to training.If you follow that,'and youware accredited, that's sufficient.Q. 41. Is'the systems approach 'to training development referred to in the new10 CFR 55 based on the systems approach described in NUREG-1220 or on INPOstandards?A. It's both. The Commission has specifically endorsed the INPO accredita-tion objectives and criteria as-being a systems approach to training.NUREG-1220 simply repeats the criteria that are contained in the policy state-ment. It then has subordinate questions that we use for information gatheringto determine whether a systems approach to training is in place.There have been questions in the past about the level of detail we arelooking for in some areas. They generally relate to conditions and standardsassociated with learning objectives and whether you need to develop K/As ornot.We've reached agreement with INPO on that process; on how you're back-fittingexisting programs that do not have K/As but have learning objectives.In general the agreement has been that if it's a new task or new training, itshould be developed with K/As. If it's an existing task or training, a panelof subject matter experts (job incumbents) could conclude that the existingtraining programs adequately cover the material, and therefore,'it need not beback-fit.Q. 42. Generic Letter 87-07 speaks of substituting an accredited trainingprogram for initial and requalification training programs previously approvedby NRC. What if the initial training program was never formally approved bythe NRC?A. By virtue of your having been issued a license, your training program, asdescribed in your. FSAR, can be considered NRC-approved. If you subsequentlysubmitted a change to your program for NRC approval, you can assume it wasapproved, unless NRC has notified you to the contrary.Q.'43. Is this true even if it's not currently in the updated FSAR?A. Yes. See Generic Letter 87-07 for guidance on how to revise your currenttraining program to conform to the new regulation.NUREG-12629 Q. 44. Programs developed using a systems approach to training are, by intentof the systematic approach, subject to revision on the basis of feedback andinput to the system from legitimate sources. Once a training program is accred-ited and appropriate certifications are made to the NRC, do subsequent revisionsto these programs need to be certified to the Commission?A. No. For accredited programs, the particular evaluation, feedback andmodification of your program is part of the process. For those programs thatare not accredited or SAT-based, then, in accordance with 50.54, you will haveto notify the Commission when you make changes that would decrease the scopeof that program.The program of record is the program to be implemented until such time as youchange it, whether it be an SAT-based program or an NRC-approved program. Wedo not intend for the change process to be used after the fact, to justify whattraining has already been done; that is, a failure to implement your existingprogram -- you cannot get out of that failure-to-implement loop by going backand changing it after the fact.Q. 45. Is it the Commission's intention that approved training programs willcontinue to be approved until accredited, and that the use of the simulatorsreferenced therein will be acceptable for use until May 26, 1991?A. Yes.Q. 46. If a facility licensee does not include an approved systems approach totraining, can operators be trained and licensed?A. Yes. Until the program is accredited, they still have to abide by theircurrent approved program, as upgraded by the requirements of the Regulation.We will still license those individuals.Q. 47. When the new rule becomes effective, will all training programs pre-viously accredited by the National Nuclear Accreditation Board be consideredapproved in accordance with the final policy statement on training and qualifi-cation of nuclear power plant personnel?A. Yes, but for clarification, they won't be approved in accordance with thepolicy statement; they will be approved in accordance with the regulation, withthe intent as expressed in the Statement of Considerations that if you havebeen accredited by the National Nuclear Accreditation Board, you're consideredto have NRC approval.Q. 48. Will utilities with INPO-accredited training programs be required tosubmit these programs to the NRC for approval?A. No. Programs that have been accredited by INPO are assumed to have NRCapproval. All that is needed is an update to your FSAR in accordance with10 CFR 50.71(e)(4). However, programs must be available for NRC review andinspection on site.But since it is still Commission approval that you need, there may be caseswhere an accredited program is not implemented appropriately and, therefore,NRC approval might be removed.NUREG-126210 Q. 49. If the utility has an INPO-accredited operator training program, butdoes not yet use a simulation facility acceptable to the Commission, will anapplication that states that the operator training program is accredited byINPO and gives details of the simulator instructions be adequate for thelicense application?A.' The Form 398 will have a block on it 'to indicate'whether or not'the appli-cant has graduated from an INPO-accreoited training'program. If the answer isyes, and'the facility has an approved or a certified simulation facility, thenthe information on education, experience, and training need not be filled outon the Form 398.On the other hand, if the individual is a graduate of an INPO-accredited train-ing program and the facility does not have an approved or certified simulationfacility, then all that information will need to be submitted.We would like you to begin certifying simulation facilities early on, and sincenearly everyone has accreditediprograms with graduates, the process gets muchsimpler when you reach those two major milestones; otherwise, it stays diffi-cult with'you providing all of the details', which we subsequently review toverify eligibility, training and experience.Q. 50. If the facility certifies the training program as being based on theSAT process, will NUREG-1220, "Training Review Criteria and Procedures," auditfindings and comments be considered violations of 10 CFR 55?A. If we did go to an accredited program, and we used NUREG-1220 to do apost-accreditation audit, and found problems, they would be addressed in oneof two ways. Depending on their severity, they would be either left to theutility to resolve with'INPO or, if they were of a more severe nature, we mightask for a performance-based inspection. Depending on the results of that in-spection, there may or may not be any need for enforcement action.Q. 51. If the SAT process is evaluated to be unsatisfactory during inspection,can operators be trained and licensed?A. That will, have to be determined on a case by case basis. If your programis deemed unsatisfactory, it would obviously depend on what the problems are.Q. 52. When filing an application, the facility is required to provide evi-dence that the applicant has successfully completed the facility licensee's re-quirements to be licensed as-an operator Or senior operator.Part of the training program is'not complete prior to filing the applicationfor the license due to the Examiner Standard (NUREG-1021) guidance-to file anapplication 60 days prior to the examinations. This has been acceptable inthe past due to the statement on the application above the facility repre-sentative signature. It states that: 'The individual has or will have com-pleted by the time of the examination all the required training." Will thiscontinue to be an acceptable approach-under the new rule?A. No. This will-not be continued. The Form 398 will be revised to removethe words "or will have."NUREG-126211 The Commission has stated in the rulemaking that the authorized representativecertifies that'the individual has completed all training. It's not.a futurecompletion, and we don't want to get into situations such as "at the time Isigned it I thought he was going to complete, but he didn't." You'are certify-ing that training is complete.We have had some experiences in the past where commitments that were made werenot completed, and they resulted in significant enforcement actions associatedwith the failure to complete training programs, even after examining, let aloneat the time of examining.Q. 53. The Regulation requires INPO accreditation for NRC approval, whileMr. Denton's Generic letter 87-07 requires that the training program be bothaccredited, and based on an SAT process. Which is the governing document?"A. The Regulation governs. The Generic Letter just restated what was in theRegulation. To receive relief under the Regulation, the program must be basedupon a systems approach to training. And some of the earlier plants, whichwere accredited very early, were based upon the INPO guidelines, and noti.uponthe INPK accreditation objectives and criteria as endorsed by the Commission inthe Policy Statement.In that case, what they are doing now by way of updating their program andrevising it, and the fact that they now understand the process, would be thebasis for them to certify to us that they have, indeed, done it on an SATbasis. They need not go back and wait until the next time through with theAccrediting Board.Q. 54. Is a Commission-approved training program defined as an INPO-accreditedtraining program, or are there other criteria for approval by the Commission ofa utility's training program? How is a training program approved by theCommission?A. NRC is getting out of the approval process for training programs. If thereis an INPO-accredited training program, it only needs to be certified to us asindicated in Generic Letter 87-07. If a utility wishes to submit a revision tothe present NRC-approved training program and asks for an NRC review and ap-proval of that, while we are not prepared to do that now, we would probablyhave to deal with that using the SAT-based, performance-based approach spe-cified in NUREG-1220.To clarify, if a utility has a program that has been accredited by INPO, we ex-pect that it will be the program of record. The Commission endorsed this pro-gram based upon the industry commitments to improve training, and the Commissionis moving out of the role of reviewing and approving training programs.The staff does not see that there'is any need for, or value in, doing a reviewto come up with a lesser regulatory standard, because SAT-based programs arenow the standard of record with NRC. 'If you are accredited, we expect you tofollow the accredited program. We have revised the approach to the inspectionof training programs, and we do not expect you to maintain a lesser standard'for licensing with NRC than you have for training the people.NUREG-126212 Therefore, the staff would consider a review of amendments or modifications tothe cold license training program, which is SAT-based, and we would use asguidance in doing that review the kind of information that is contained inNUREG-1220, or you could propose that you have done it in accordance with theTSD process, which INPO is using. If you show that it's comparable to that, wewould also consider it. That is a vehicle for getting a Commission approval ofa performance-based or SAT-based program on a case-by-case basis for a coldplant. We don't mean to exclude you from being able to do performance-basedtraining.Q. 55. -Are you still going to want Form 398 60 days prior to an examination?A. We want to get to the point where, if you are accredited and have anapproved simulation facility, all that is required is the certification. Noprior review of the application will be necessary to determine eligibility, sothe time between submittal of the application and the conduct of the exam couldbe very short.However, until then, the Region needs time to review applications to determinewhether the candidate is eligible, and to have an opportunity to interact withthe training department to supplement that application in some cases. In thoseinstances, we're still going to want to see it on the order of 60 days priorto the examination to start the review. However, we cannot take action on anapplication until the final completed application is filed.Q. 56. There is one situation where you say you can administer the writtenexam and operating test but not issue a license until required evidence of con-trol manipulations is supplied. It would seem a logical extension of this toallow us to put somebody up who hasn't completed all the requirements, pass him,and-make the request, "Do not issue a license until he's subsequently certified."Does that make sense or is that completely prohibited?A. The exception for manipulating the controls to which you refer is only forthe individual who has not had an opportunity to perform the manipulations be-cause the facility has been in extended shutdown. It is a condition beyond thatcandidate's control. However, we are moving into the role of accepting facilitycertification, and we want that certification to be unconditional. So the twosituations are not comparable.Q. 57. With respect to the logistics of submitting NRC Form 398 only after allprogram requirements have been completed, and; in addition, having to submitit 60 days prior to the examination date, would a reasonable compromise be tosubmit the 398s, unsigned by the facility, merely for a screening by theregion, given that the the 60-day requirement is due to the time involved insuch a screening? We could then follow them up once the program's been com-pleted, maybe a day or a week before the examination, for approval by theRegion.A. Although those types of issues need to be worked out on an individual basis,it is preferable not to have licensing decisions made upon draft materials, par-ticularly when there may be changes to them during the 60-day time frame.Advance copies (unsigned) may be submitted on a case-by-case basis if there isa concern about a particular candidate's eigibility, experience, or training.NUREG-126213 However, what we review and base our licensing decisions on should be the ,application as it is submitted. The Regulation does not provide for review ofdrafts and other documents along those lines.The time between submission of the document and when the candidate takes theexamination appears to be the issue that's of greatest concern. There is oneway you can shorten that time frame. Certify your simulation facilities early.That's one of the things that we would like people to pursue. The other thingwe can do is to expedite the review, give the applications a review when theyfirst come in, and see if we can't shorten the time needed since we can shortenthe submission times between the time it has to come in and when we finalizefor the exam. In other words, we will reconsider the 60-day time frame thatwas in the earlier version of the examiner standards in light of thisrequirement.Q. 58. If a facility has an accredited initial program that's SAT based andhas a plant-referenced simulator acceptable to the staff, then the time betweensubmittal of the application and the exam can be of the order of a couple weeks?A. Well, we're going to need to know well in advance of that how many candi-dates there are for licenses, but the review for eligibility, training andexperience requirements is significantly reduced if all we have to do is lookat two blocks on the form.The intent of the rulemaking is to make the application process easier, and toput the burden of the determination of completion and eligibility on the facil-ity, rather than on the staff, and accept that certification.The issue that is significant is one of managing our own resources and knowinghow many candidates are going to be put up and how many examiners we have toarrange for. Because it's a resource-intensive effort, we have to know, at.about the time of the 90-day letter, how many candidates you are going to havefor an exam on a given date. However, we don't need to know the specifics ofwho is being scheduled for the exam at that point.Q. 59. Is there any difference between an "approved simulation facility" and a"certified simulation facility?"A. In the context of applications, there is no difference. An acceptablesimulation facility is one that is either certified or approved.*Q. 60. What is a significant control manipulation?A. Significant control manipulations are defined in Regulatory Guide 1.8.Examples can be found in items A-F of 55.59(c)(3) (On-the-Job Training forRequalification), although that's not an inclusive list. Basically, "signifi-cant control manipulations" involve situations that affect either power orreactivity, and that require manipulation of controls. Therefore, the plantshould not be shutdown when these manipulations are performed, except for thosemanipulations required for fuel handling.Q. 61. Will manipulations on a simulator be adequate?NUREG-126214 A. Those five control manipulations have to be performed on the plant, unlessthe plant has not completed preoperational testing and is in its initial start-up test program.Q. 62. Where does the requirement for five reactivity manipulations on theplant come-from? Why can't they be performed on the.simulator?A. The control manipulation on the plant has been required for some time.That's not a change. We have now put it in the Regulation to make it explicit.In fact, for a long time, if you had not performed a start up and shut down ofthe plant, we actually had you perform them as a part of the NRC examination.So this is not, per se, a change in practice.Q. 63. Must the five control manipulations be different?A. Regulatory Guide 1.8 asks for diversity. Therefore, the intent is to havedifferent manipulations; however, this is not necessarily required. If reactiv-ity manipulations are repeated, this fact should be indicated in the commentsection on the application.Q. 64. As far as the five significant control manipulations are concerned,what's going to constitute evidence?A. Documentation on the OJT qualification cards consisting of a simple "per-formed" code next to the signature of someone on shift is sufficient evidence.Q. 65. What constitutes an-extended shutdown?A. An extended shutdown would be anything that is long enough to prevent anapplicant from completing required manipulations or training prior to takingthe examination.As an example, if the plant is in a refueling outage that lasts for a year andthe candidate did not get an opportunity to perform the control manipulationsbecause the plant never got to Mode 2 or Mode 1, we would consider giving thatindividual an exam, and even issuing him a license limited to shutdownconditions.;When he completes the control manipulations on a hot plant, we would then re-move the condition on his license that limits it to shutdown. We do not intendto penalize individuals because of an extended outage, but we also don't intendto give waivers for what's clearly a requirement of the regulations.Q. 66. If you have to complete the initial simulator and classroom trainingprior to allowing a nonlicensed operator to manipulate the controls from thecontrol room, how can a person get their initial license? After the timeneeded for your simulator and classroom training, and for the NRC exam, thereis not much time left to complete the five reactivity manipulations.A. This applies only to a hot license. If the individual has not-had theopportunity to perform control manipulations on shift because of an extended shutdown, we would consider examining him. And if he-passes that exam, we mayissue a license which is limited to shutdown.NUREG-126215 Q. 67. Will startup and shutdown experience gained on a certified simulationfacility be considered adequate experience for operator and senior operatorcandidates?A. Yes. The same answer applies to the use of an approved simulation facility.The application goes to whatever is in your NRC-approved training program, oryour INPO-accredited program for startup and shutdown experience.Q. 68. How much time can pass before the five control manipulations must becompleted before the written exam and operating tests are completed?A. Up to six years. If, for example, we had given a shutdown license to aplant experiencing an extended shutdown, and we had given a license to a candi-date who was constrained to shutdown mode, he could actually serve out the termof that license for a period of six years.Q. 69. Does NRC intend to make start-up certifications a part of the operatingtest for every new licensed applicant? If so, what is the status of the pre-sent start-up certification?A. Start-up certifications are done on an audit basis, and it is left to thechief examiner to determine which initial license candidates will be audited.Therefore, there are no changes from our past practice.Q. 70. For NRC licensing examinations which have already been scheduled forthe remainder of 1987, will relief be granted from the new requirement that alltraining program requirements be 100 percent completed prior to the submittalof NRC-398 and NRC-396 forms? These 1987 licensing exams were scheduled in thefall of 1986.A. Forms 398 submitted after May 26, 1987 must comply with the new regulation.Q. 71. What kind of "written request" is discussed in paragraph 55.31(a)(3)?A. An authorized representative of the facility licensee is required to re-quest that the written examination and operating test be administered to theapplicant. This request may be included in the transmittal letter forwardingthe applications to the NRC. In order for the NRC to approve such a request,the facility licensee must provide suitable facilities for the administrationof the written examination and operating test.Q. 72. If an approved training program based on SAT is used for initial or re-qualification training pursuant to 55.31(a)(4) and 55.59(c), are there any NRCimposed minimum training requirements? Of specific interest is the 3 monthsof on-th-job training for initial training and the annual requirements of55.59(c)(3)(i) and (ii)?A. There are no additional requirements provided that the response cited inGeneric Letter 87-07 is filed and the facility plans to or has incorporatedINPO guidelines86-025 and 86-026. We are aware that INPO guideline 83-022"PWR Control Room Operator, Senior Control Room Operator and Shift SupervisorQualification" does contain the three months on shift training period.NUREG-126216 Q. 73. Reg Guide 1.8 endorses ANSI/ANS 3.1 for ROs and SROs. In reviewing theANSI/ANS 3.1 annual and biennial manipulation requirements, it-was noted thatthe ANS 3.1 manipulation list does not agree with the 10CFR55 manipulation listfor five manipulations. This deviation was not stated as an exception in Reg.Guide 1.8. Please clarify whether Regulatory Guide 1.8 should have taken ex-ception to this deviation.A. The five manipulations specified in the rule are necessary for eligibility,not for requalification.Q. 74. At a minimum, five significant control manipulations must be performedwhich affect reactivity or power level. For a facility that has not completedpre-operational testing and the initial startup test program as described inits FSAR, the Commission may accept evidence of satisfactory performance ofsimulated control manipulations as part of a Commission approved training pro-gram by a trainee on a simulation facility. If the facility is in an extendedshutdown, the NRC may administer the examinations, but may not issue the li-cense until the required evidence of control manipulations is supplied.Do we need to submit waivers since we don't have full power license yet? Doesthis apply only to initial license candidates, or to all license holders, e.g.renewal? Does the NRC accept in lieu of the above simulator manipulations theuse of a research reactor?A. If a plant has not completed the initial startup test program, successfulcompletion of an approved training program on a simulation facility satisfiesthis requirement, and no waiver is required.These requirements apply to initial and replacement license applicants. Re-quirements for renewal of licenses are covered in part 55.57. For plants thathave completed their initial startup test program, applicants must complete thecontrol manipulations on their actual plant.*Q. 75. How will NRC evaluations of INPO-accredited programs affect NRC'swillingness to allow use of a Commission approved program developed by using asystems approach to training? Notwithstanding the generality of. this initialquestion, please address the following two specific situations within theanswer.(1) How would an "unfavorable" NRC review of an accredited program affect afacility's ability to use an approved program in lieu of paragraphs55.59(c)(2)., (3) and (4) pursuant to 55.59(c)?(2) How will the NRC determine that a requal and/or initial program is basedon a SAT during their evaluations? Of particular interest is the evaluationof element (5). under the 55.4 definition of SAT.A. For clarification, an INPO-accredited program and an NRC-approved programare the same. (1) Unfavorable NRC review may be due to a number of conditionsas outlined in the Commission Policy Statement of March 20, 1985, and continuingevaluations using NUREG-1220 or examinations administered by the region.NUREG-126217'

An unfavorable review would not have any direct effect on your program. NRCwould work with INPO to resolve identified deficiencies. However, NRC has dis-cretionary enforcement authority under the Policy Statement, and this could beimposed if continuing problems were identified as a result of performance-basedinspections.(2) The criteria used by NRC may be found in NUREG-1220.Q. 76. Will any combination of significant control manipulations be acceptableas dictated by the facility's modes of operation during which the applicant isin training?A. Refer to Reg Guide 1.8 Regulatory Position C.1.h for guidance on what theCommission considers to be acceptable.The acceptability of any alternatives will have to be determined on a case-by-case basis by the facility and indicated in the comments sections of theapplication.Obviously, some significant manipulations may not be possible in Mode 4 of aplant. It may be possible in Mode 5 or 6, whichever you use for refueling, inthe case of a fuel-handling foreman, so it's going to have to be on a case-by-case determination.Q. 77. In the staff's presentations under Training Program Approval, it wasmentioned that in order to implement §55.31(a)(4) and §55.59(c), the nextannual FSAR update could delete training program details. Please clarify what(event or achievement) is meant by "implementation" of §55.31(a)(4) and§55.59(c): what would the staff expect to see in the FSAR update differentfrom that information which would be provided under Reg Guide 1.70 and thebasis for development of the information sought (Reg Guide 1.70, StandardReview Plan, etc.). Should utilities assume that besides stating that thetraining program is INPO accredited the FSAR should retain revised programdetails in accordance with details sought under Reg Guide 1.70?A. The staff plans to revise Section 13.2, Training of NUREG-0800 to provideguidance for information contained in revisions to the FSAR. There are noplans at this time to revise Regulatory Guide 1.70. In lieu of additionalguidance at this time the staff recommends that the licensed training programswhich are accredited and are based on a systems approach to training only needreference Generic Letter 87-07 and the dates the programs were accredited.Plans for certification of simulation facilities should also be included.With regard to other training programs contained in Section 13.2 of the FSAR,those training programs listed in the March 20, 1985 Commission PolicyStatement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnelwhich are accredited need to reference the date of accreditation. For thosefacilities which are developing programs under the accreditation process theFSAR should identify the programs and provide the dates that SERs were or areplanned to be submitted.Medical Examination (Subpart C, Section 55.21)Q. 78. How long before administration of a license exam must an individualhave had a medical exam?NUREG-126218 A. The form verifying the medical exam should come in at the same time thelicense application comes in. It will be good for six months from the date itis signed by the physician; waivers, as stated in ES-111, will apply.Q. 79. Assume a physician may not desire to release personnel medical data dueto a patient-doctor relationship. What does the utility do if the informationis treated as privileged by the physician?A. The Privacy Act Statement contained in NRC Form 396, "Certification ofMedical Examination by Facility Licensee," does not allow for privileged infor-mation being withheld by the facility or the physician if it is requested byNRC. It is the utility's responsibility to ensure that the records can be madeavailable for inspection. Utilities should ensure that the physician under-stands this requirement.Q. 80. For individuals who are currently under either license conditions orletters from the regions to submit continuing medical follow-up information(e.g., quarterly blood pressure readings) for review and analysis, do theseconditions continue to apply after May 26, or should the individual submit thisinformation to the utility's physician for evaluation and analysis (without acopy to the regions)?A. Continue to report quarterly blood pressure or other restrictions. Highblood pressure or other restrictions are usually associated with some remedialprograms (diet, medication, or a combination) and should result in normal or ac-ceptable conditions. At that time the physician can request termination ofthese reporting requirements.Certification (Subpart C, Section 55.23; NRC Form 396)Q. 81. Has NRC Form 396 changed?A. Yes. A copy of the new version has been distributed-to everyone at thepublic meetings.Q. 82. Must a Form 396 be submitted for every license application?A. Yes, but the detailed medical information only has to be submitted when aconditional license is requested.Q. 83. Under the new Rule will you receive a Form 396 only upon licenserenewal?A. That is correct. We expect to receive a Form 396, "Certification of MedicalExamination by Facility Licensee," at the end of the appropriate license period,when the-renewal application is submitted.Q. 84. Is the examining physician an authorized representative of the facilitylicensee and thus allowed to complete and sign an NRC Form 396?A. No. The Form 396 does not have a place for the physician to sign. Thephysician's name and license number-are required, but the authorized representa-tive is the highest level of corporate management who signed the application.That will be the same person who signs the Form 398.NUREG-126219 Q. 85. Can Form 396 be held by the licensees for the two-year update or dothey have to be submitted to the Commission? If the latter, how often do theyhave to be submitted?A. You don't have to keep the Form 396 on file,.but you must keep some docu-mentation that the medical exam was performed and that the operator meets theANSI standard. The Form 396 is only the means by which you transmit that in-formation to us upon renewal of a six-year license.Q. 86. For a multiple-unit site, can the signature on the application be fromthe individual responsible for operations, the highest ranking individual atthat site? So that you could have different signatures; i.e., Sequoyah appli-atiTons would different signatures than those of Brown's Ferry?A. Yes.Q. 87. Will the Commission develop a protocol to ensure that detailed medicalrecords will be forwarded to the NRC medical experts and not made available tolay persons?A. This is an issue for which industry initiative may be appropriate, and ithas been discussed by NRC, INPO and the accrediting board.The staff needs to have assurance that the medical examination was done Inaccordance with the ANSI standard. The staff does not need to see the privatemedical record from the doctor, because it may include other medical informa-tion not related to the standard, or may get into the area of privileged in-formation between doctor and patient.It might be appropriate for the industry to develop an examination form whichwould track the standard, such that the doctor would provide a statement to theresponsible officer that the examination had been completed and which wouldidentify the areas evaluated. Such a report would be all that is necessary forthe individual's file, and it would be available on site.If, in the case of a request for a license condition based upon some medicallydisqualifying condition that can be accommodated through medication, therapy,or something else, the doctor would submit the examination form and any addi-tional supporting information for the staff medical doctor to review to make adetermination as to whether to issue a conditioned license.That information would be handled in the same manner as we now handle confiden-tial information that is covered by the Privacy Act. Once submitted to NRC, theinformation would be exempt from further public disclosure, and it would be thebasis for our review.We don't anticipate developing any new protocols for handling that type ofinformation, but we recommend that you have evidence available on site showingthat the medical doctors conducted the examination in accordance with the ANSIstandard, or that you provide the physician a copy of the standard and let himcomplete whatever form you use now for that type of examination. It's only asuggestion. The actual requirement is that the examination be conducted inaccordance with the standard.NUREG-126220 Incapacitation Because of Disability or Illness (Subpart C, Section 55.25)*Q. 88. Must the felony blocks on Form 396 be completed in order for the formto be considered complete and to be accepted by the NRC?A. The form has been revised to delete the felony blocks. A certificationis now required that the individual meets the safeguards requirements of thefacility.Q. 89. Will a standardized form be provided by the Commission for notificationof disability- or illness?A. The intent is that licensees keep the records. We don't need to be involvedwhen someone breaks an arm or may be out for an extended illness. If it's atemporary condition, no notification is required.We ask the question, "can the operator perform licensed duties?" If the in-dividual is going on shift, and there is any question in your mind, we wouldsay submit a revised Form 396 to describe the condition/remedy. We may tellyou it's not necessary to make a ruling on it. But you can have a problem ifyou don't notify us and some individual has a problem in performing licensedduties. If a person is to resume duties after a disabling condition, then wewould need to be notified with a Form 396.Q. 90. What is the relationship between the facility licensee and the individ-ual with regard to responsibility for notification on medical issues? The Regu-lations indicate that we have a 30-day notification period upon learning thediagnosis. The question really is, what's the mechanism for the facility tobecome aware of the diagnosis; and what responsibility does the individuallicensee have to make that notification to the facility? There's the potentialto get into a problem if we don't learn of a licensee's medical condition.A. It is the operator's responsibility not to operate that plant in a disabledcondition. The Regulation says that the facility licensee shall notify theCommission, but we believe that, logically, the operator should have enough re-sponsibility to tell you there's a problem. Facility procedures should be setup to ensure that that occurs.There is nothing in the Regulation that obligates the operator, or the senioroperator, to let the facility know. But there is an obligation for you, onthe biennial medical examination, to identify and report disabling medicalconditions.Q. 91. If the individual has a medical problem during the period of thelicense, for instance a broken arm, does this need to be reported to NRC if theoperator is not carrying on licensed duties? For example, if he is trainingindividuals in a classroom, do we still have to report it, or only if he'scarrying on licensed duties per the Tech Specs?A. It's when that person serves on shift that we have to know about a dis-ability. Usually, if he has a temporary disability that would preclude himfrom performing regular duties, he's not to perform those duties with thattemporary disability. We need not know if it's temporary. When you return himNUREG-126221

'-Vto shift duties, if he has been absent for a period of time, you control thatprocess with the 40-hour parallel shift duties and maintain the certificationon file. It's only in case of a permanent disability that we would have to benotified. In that circumstance you want to include a qualification in thelicense to allow the operator to perform licensed duties with the medical con-dition if some compensatory measure effectively offsets that condition.Q. 92. Can an individual be returned to active licensed duties after the medi-cal disability has been corrected if a portion of the requal program has beenmissed?A. The operator must be current in the requalification program before hereturns to duty, and he must receive 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of parallel watch standing.Documentation (Subpart C, Section 55.27)Q. 93. The utilities must maintain some records in fire proof vaults. I don'tfeel that the physician's offices meet those requirements. Yet this is aqualification record, as defined by that ANSI Standard. Are we going to haveto provide physicians some type of fire proof storage? How do we handle thataspect of this record keeping?A. We recommended to INPO, and they are considering the development of, anexamination report form which would cover the areas in the ANSI Standard andwhich would be submitted from the medical examiner to the facility forretention.Q. 94. Can private physicians maintain medical records for the facilitylicensee, as is currently practiced?A. You may choose to delegate that responsibility to them, but it is, indeed,your responsibility to ensure that the appropriate records are available forinspection.Regulatory Guide 1.8 and ANSI/ANS 3.1Q. 95. When we want to go from a non-accredited status!to an accredited status,what would the step-by-step progression, and the changes in the regulatoryenvironment be for us?A. The date you receive accreditation from the Academy, you would send NRC aletter that says "we've been accredited on this date." You then begin thatprogram because the previous training program is superseded. You need not tellus about it until the next FSAR update, which is required pursuant to10 CFR 50.71(e)(4).Simply send a letter saying that you were accredited, and the date of accredita-tion, and certify that your requalification program is based on a systems approachto training; this supersedes any prior commitments to NRC by way of additionaltraining.NUREG-126222 Q. 96. -For the FSAR update following accreditation, it would not be necessaryto have the extent of detail in that update, as previously was the case, isthat correct?A. That is correct. It can be blank, except for the information about thedate of accreditation. It need not say anything, other than you were accredited,and the date-you achieved the accreditation. All records associated with yourtraining program,' following accreditation, are available to the staff on sitefor review; they need not-be submitted.Q. 97. If the facility does not certify its training programs in accordancewith Generic Letter 87-07, when must FSAR Chapter 13 be revised and how do Ido it?A. The Rule becomes effective on May 26th, 1987, and-at that time, you mustcomply with the new provisions in the requalification program. So, there wouldneed to be a change to the FSAR submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(i)and 55.59(c), to conform to the regulation, if you chose not to certify thetraining program.The Commission endorsed the INPO Program for accreditation in the Policy State-ment. We said we would accept a program after it was accredited and certifiedto be based on a systems approach to training. A utility that perceives theyget some advantage by leaving an old training program on the docket becausethat's all NRC is going to inspect is misguided. That is not consistent withthe intent of improving training in the industry. We do not require that youtell us all the details about an accredited program, but we do expect you toimplement them.We have heard rumors that some facilities intend to have one standard for NRC,and a different standard for INPO. That is not the Commission's intent in thePolicy Statement and we would bring such a practice to the Commission's atten-tion promptly. We expect you to follow the accredited program when it isaccredited. Failure to implement that program will be of concern both to INPOand to NRC.Q. 98. Will NRC be prepared to approve or disapprove FSAR Chapter 13 changeswithin the 60 days allowed for implementing 10 CFR 55 requirements?A. The approval is effective automatically, if you have an accredited programand have certified that it is based on a systems approach in accordance withGL 87-07. You shouldn't expect to see any response from the Commission onchanges that are implemented as a result of this rule, with the exception ofany license amendments which are required because of something in your TechnicalSpecifications. There are a number of facilities that have a more restrictiverequirement in their Technical Specifications than that for which they wouldhave to apply; amending their Technical Specifications to obtain relief is per-mitted under the rule. It would be an administrative change in order to con-form with the Regulation. But it would not have to be acted on within 60 daysand would be processed as any routine change to the Technical Specifications.If you do notwe cannot'actplan to certify that your program is based on a systems approach,on it until we receive'it in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(i).NUREG-126223 It will then be reviewed in the usual way. In this case, it would not be rea-sonable to expect it to be completed by May 26, 1987.Q. 99. But in the meantime, is Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.8 our commit-ment, as approved in our FSAR?A. Yes. Your commitment is that which is approved in the FSAR. It is binding,as are any of the more restrictive requirements in the Rule, until you are ac-credited and so inform us by letter. At that point, you can make changes pur-suant to 50.59 to remove things from your FSAR and your program. When youneed to amend a license, you submit the application for an amendment to strikethe sections in the Technical Specifications or in the license which have beensuperseded by accreditation.Q. 100. Upon achieving accreditation, would we then become committed toRegulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2?A. No. Regulatory Guide 1.8, Rev. 2, goes into effect for all facilities, asis indicated in the implementation section of the Guide, on March 31, 1988.However, if you have an accredited program, you are no longer obligated tofollow the Guide. At that point, you can put the Regulatory Guide aside, butyou now must implement your commitment to the Accrediting Board. We have lookedat that information, and we've concluded that INPO guidelines in this area areequivalent to the staff guidelines in Regulatory Guides.Q. 101. This question addresses NRC approval of training programs. Do revi-sions to requal programs which reduce their scope require NRC review and ap-proval per 10 CFR 50.54.i-1 if the program is INPO accredited? And can theterm "reduction of scope" be clarified?A. NRC review is not required if the program is accredited and is certifiedto be based upon a systems approach to training. Element 5 of the SAT includesrevision of training in order to meet the needs of the job incumbents; there-fore, we expect you to update your program based on this feedback.The intent is that if you are SAT based, and are revising the program basedupon an evaluation of the needs of the trainees, that the result of that eval-uation is the program you are going to conduct. And you have a basis for thatevaluation. Reducing the scope does not apply. The intent is to give you theflexibility to modify the program in order to provide the training that you,the facility licensee, determines appropriate for your job incumbents.We have seen that process work through the INPO-accreditation process. We haveconfidence in the process. And even though we are sure that there are going tobe cases where there is content left out, where we are going to have someconcerns about something not having been covered, the process is there so thatyou can cover what's needed.The training and the feedback process you provide will permit the training tobe job-relevant. It is training which the trainees agree is important.Probably the only exception is for the instructor who has had that training.But the old test-out exemption is gone. You can't-take an exam, do well on it,NUREG-126224 and eliminate training in'a systems approach. If someone misses a portion ofthe training program because he has been ill or been-away, you may use some-thing like a required reading program and a test to ensure that he has coveredthe material. But when the Rule says training on a continuing basis, it refersto whatever cycle you have designed that has been accepted by the accreditingboard.NRC has separated itself from the training review. We would prefer, after youare accredited, that you certify you have a systems approach in place to us,and eliminate the details from your FSAR. Certification is all that we needbecause the periodic reviews through the accreditation process are the vehiclefor keeping your training programs current. We think that the separation oftraining from examining is the most significant part of this rule-making.Q. 102. There are a lot of documents involved with the accreditation process,so if an IE inspector came in and said, "We think that your program is lessthan the scope," what is he basing that on?A. Regional inspectors are governed by inspection module IP 41701, which requiresa performance-based inspection. If you make a change to your program thriough theaccreditation process using the mechanisms for revising and updating your pro-gram, based upon feedback and need, and that's the reason that you're revisingit, we don't see that that is an issue of lessening the scope.The lessening of a scope issue had to do with the old program when it wasregulatory-based, where we required a certain number of hours rin the classroomand certain types of content. The approach now is one of modeling the programbased upon performance and need, and the process is one that has been endorsedby the Commission through the policy statement. To the extent that you need tochange the program based upon feedback of your own performance, that'sappropriate.If you-have an approved program today that calls for administering a comprehen-sive written exam annually and you want to change that to a comprehensive writ-ten exam every two years, the regulation is the basis for concluding that thatis acceptable; that is not reducing the scope. That is simply conforming tothe regulation. You can make changes to match the regulation either throughthe 50.59 review process or by amending your license. There are a few facili-ties which have commitments to operator training programs associated with astaffing requirement section in Section 6 of the Technical Specifications. Ifyou are in that category, you can submit an amendment request to the Commissionfor an administrative change to your Technical Specifications to conform to therequirements of the regulation, but you may not do less if it is, in fact, arequirement in your license now. You can't do less than what's currently inthe license. If it's in your approved program, you can do a 50.59 review toconform to the regulation.Q. 103. Let's say that in my systematic approach to training, I have determinedthat it doesn't take three years of experience to meet the requirements. I com-plete the program with whatever experience we determine is appropriate, andwe've got an accredited program. Do we still have to have the experience re-quirements in our program? Do we still have to meet them if we have anaccredited program?NUREG-1262 25 A. The industry, through NUMARC, has made a commitment to NRC in both trainingand qualifications. We did not take exception to the three-year requirement forexperience. In the past we have accepted two years for reactor operators.On the effective date of Regulatory Guide 1.8, March 31, 1988, we would expectpeople to meet ANS 3.1 unless they have already committed to that.Within the accreditation process, there is a hierarchy of guidelines just aswithin the regulations. An acceptable way of meeting the regulation, as itrelates to experience requirements, is by conforming to ANS 3.1. Another wayis through the accreditation process, which also has guidelines.In the case of a review and approval by the Staff, we would look at any basesfor waivers of those requirements and alternatives that are proposed. In theaccreditation process, the mechanisms are already built in for you to do thatyourselves on a case-by-case basis.So accreditation criteria for entering into training as it relates to qualifi-cations are described in the INPO training guidelines for each position. Theyarticulate what the entry levels are for training and have in that process amechanism for granting waivers to certain requirements.The Commission, through this rule making, has said, "We will accept the can-didate at the end of training if he is certified to have been a graduate of anaccredited program." We have done that through promulgation of the policystatement on training and qualification and an endorsement of the accrediationprogram. That means that you control the review and waiver process, throughyour vehicle with INPO. Now, if you want to deviate significantly from theINPO guidelines, I would suggest that you need to contact INPO and they may needto contact NUMARC if you want to come up with a radically new interpretation.But, in fact, if you have a basis for what you're doing which is documented,and you do that on an individual basis, we do not intend to second-guess yourjudgement. In fact, we would not see it on the application when you have bothan accredited program and a simulation facility acceptable to the Commissionfor the conduct of operating tests.That's a major change in the way we have done business in the past; it putsa lot of trust in the industry through the self-initiative of INPO and NUMARCin order to provide both training and qualifications.Q. 104. Have the experience requirements to sit for an RO or SRO exam statedin Reg Guide 1.8 and NUREG-1021 changed?A. Yes, in that the experience requirements are not operative if you have anaccredited program and have certified your simulation facility. ES-109 willbe changed under the revision to NUREG-1021 and under Regulatory Guide 1.8,which becomes effective March 31, 1988 for nonaccredited programs.Q. 105. Will NRC change any of the eligibility requirements in the ExaminerStandards for taking the SRO exam discussed as a result of implementing 10 CFR55? This question is being asked in light of the fact that 10 CFR 55 supersedesprevious regulations. Specifically, will NRC require that someone have oneNUREG-126226 year of experience as an RO before entering the training program for an SRO?ANSI/ANS 3.1-1981 requires a minimum of six months.A. Yes, there is a change to the eligibility requirements except ifhas an accredited program and an acceptable simulation facility. Inthe requirement goes away because it becomes part of your accrediteda facilitythat case,program.Q. 106. The way I understand the Examiner Standards presently, the experiencerequirement to take a reactor operator exam is two years of power plant experi-ence, one of which is nuclear. ANSI Standard 3.1-1981,-specifies three yearsof power plant experience, one of which is nuclear. The two remaining yearsshould be as a nonlicensed operator, and of that,' six months should be as anonlicensed operator at the facility for which you seek the license. So, thatwould be in my interpretation, a three-year requirement now, whereas in thepast itfwas a two year. Is that correct?A. That is correct. The standard had not been imposed across the board in1981: There are some facilities that have committed to that standard in theirapplication, and were reviewed against that standard. A previous version of theExaminer Standards was based upon ANSI N18.1-1971, because we had not endorsedANSI 3.1. This rule making process endorses ANSI 3.1.-1981.Q. 107. And the same applies for the senior operator. Examiner Standard 109says four years, and ANSI 3.1 says three. So, you will be changing that onealso?A. The Reg Guide takes exception to the ANSI Standard.four-year requirement for experience for the SRO.Reg Guide 1.8 cites a*Q. 108. Reg Guide 1.8 endorses certain positions through ANSI 3.1-1981 fortraining and qualifications. The ANSI Standard has experience requirementswhich are different from those in the Examiner Standards. For instance, fora reactor operator, ANSI 3.1 of 1981 requires three years power plant experi-ence, one of which is nuclear. And I believe it says two years as a non-licensed operator, with six months as a nonlicensed operator at the facility.Is the Reg Guide endorsing those eligibility requirements also, or justtraining?A. We have not taken exception to three years of experience for reactoroperator. We have endorsed the ANSI Standard with respect to three years forRO, but have taken exception by requiring the four years for SRO. That's thesame as the practice has been. We recognize the difference between the Exam-iner Standards and the Reg Guide in this area. The Examiner Standards will bechanged to coincide with the implementation date of the Reg Guide, which isMarch 31, 1988.Q. 109. 'Are the experience requirements for operator licenses applicable alsoto research and training reactors?A. The requirements for test and research reactors have not changed. Whateverhas'been approved in the past, in terms of eligibility requirements, continuesfor test and research reactors. The eligibility requirements in RegulatoryGuide 1.8 refer to power'reactors.NUREG-126227 Q. 110. I have an accredited SAT-based program. The simulator should be avail-able next year and will meet ANSI/ANS 3.5 Standards. It's my understanding thatwe are okay because we meet those three elements, SAT, INPO accredited, and oursimulator should meet your standards. Am I correct, that in meeting thosestandards, I don't have to worry about the ANSI Standards requiring two yearsas a nonlicensed operator with six months at the plant?A. No, that's not entirely correct. While you don't have to submit that in-formation to NRC, the industry, through NUMARC and INPO's training guidelinesand accreditation, has standards comparable to those in the-ANSI standard.Therefore, we feel that the qualification requirements are still being met.The only difference is that you don't have to submit all that information to us.We had a case recently where an individual was a graduate of an accredited pro-gram but did not meet the experience eligibility requirements. His plant ex-perience was that of a chemist, a position not comparable either to that of acontrol room operator or a shift engineer. We denied the application, and itwas denied on appeal. We aren't going to see that kind of information in thefuture, and we expect the industry to police itself with respect to ensuringthat the NUMARC commitments are, indeed, met. Because we are stepping out ofthat area, and not requiring it to be submitted, does not mean that you canrelax your standards.Q. 111. In the example that you just gave you were apparently talking about anSRO candidate, and I was referring, primarily, to RO candidates. In the past,particularly for those who weren't committed to the 1981 version of that ANSIStandard, there was no requirement for RO candidates to have been nonlicensedoperators. Now we are faced with the new requirement, and I've got a group ofpeople who are in training now, who don't necessarily have that background.A. There is one aspect of the accreditation process that you may be missing.And it's a part of the process that pertains to meeting NRC eligibility require-ments. The accreditation process does include a mechanism for you to exempt,or waive aspects, based upon having performed an evaluation of the candidate'sexperience and/or testing. That is the same kind of process that we use inmaking a judgement, on a case-by-case basis, about eligibility, where a persondidn't cross all the "t's" and dot all the" i's".We are looking for you to use that same process. You may choose, for a docu-mented reason, as a part of your program, to waive a portion of the require-ment, based upon experience and/or testing. That is a part of the accredita-tion process, and-we understand that, and we expect that to continue. And theonly difference is, you don't have to submit it to us to request a waiver.Q. 112. Will NRC continue to accept one year as a Navy reactor operator, engi-neering watch supervisor, etc., as meeting the one-year reactor operator ex-perience requirement, if one year remains as a requirement?A. Yes.Q. 113. The definition for related technical training in ANSI/ANS 3.1 says,"Formal training beyond the high school level in technical subjects, associatedwith the position in question, such as acquired in several programs, includingutilities, and others. Such training program shall be of a scheduled andNUREG-126228 planned length, and include text materials and lectures." All of our programsmeet that definition of related technical.training, and yet we can't count itfor experience. Why not?A. Experience is an eligibility requirement. If the person has the experienceand the qualifications, then he goes into a training program. You have mecha-nisms, through your accreditation process, where you look at the entry levelinto your training program. You can count time and training prior to that pro-gram, but we have not been giving credit for experience for the training whichis required and has been approved by NRC as a part of the specific programleading up to license eligibility.Q. 114. Do radiation protection personnel now require.three years experienceper ANS 3.1-1981, even if Tech Specs require less experience?A. The requirements for radiation protection personnel in Reg Guide 1.8 arethe same as those included in ANSI Standard 18.1 of 1971.Q. 115. About five years ago, we all wrote our response to the Denton letterand said that we would do specific punch list items to train our STAs. Now ifwe have an approved STA training program, per INPO, the old prescriptive'hoursthat we'committed to no longer apply. However, if that punch list item is inour FSAR, we need to remove-it "per the INPO-accredited program." Is thatcorrect?A. That is correct, as it relates to licensed operator programs and otherprograms for'which you have made training commitments which are covered by theCommission's Policy Statement on training and qualifications. And in bothcases, it is simply a 50.59 type review to amend or update your FSAR to indi-cate the date on which you received accreditation, for instance,,for the STAposition. The only exception relates to the CommissionPolicy Statement onengineering expertise on shift or the use of the dual role SRO/STA comparedwith a separate STA, as indicated in Reg Guide 1.8, Regulatory Position C.1.j.Q. 116. When an applied science degree is being considered, what constitutesan acceptable degree? How do we know what specific degree allows someone to bean instant SRO or whether he must first be an RO?A. The staff reviews those and we' use our best judgment, as do the people in,the regions, in making a determination based on an application. If you feelthat an application has been unfairly rejected, you can request reviews by re-gional and headquarter's management...If you want to bring it up through a re-view, we can certainly do that on a plant-specific basis.Q. 117. Is it true that in.the'future it won't be-a problem, because you won'tcheck up on us? If we send an application in saying.someone's an SRO, will youaccept the application because you won't know what degree he has because itwon't be listed?A. It's our understanding that the determination will be made in accordancewith guidelines that have-been established under your INPO-accredited program.NUREG-126229 The Commission has made a determination that we're going to trust the industryand let the industry programs be operative in the area of training and qualifi-cations under the policy statement. We understand generically what those com-mitments mean, and we've reviewed them quite closely.If we find that they're being abused, either through an inspection program orthrough any other vehicle, that's going to cause grave concern as to whetherthe industry is able to police itself and act responsibly, given what we havedelegated to you through those programs.We've been on team visits and at board meetings and we've seen utilities beingput through their paces to describe what mechanisms they use to review and makedeterminations about the eligibility for candidates to enter into training andwhether they are qualified to perform in that job position.What we're saying is that we believe that. process is the appropriate one to use.If you do that in a straightforward, rigorous manner, that's what we're lookingfor. We're not going to nit-pick and second-guess your judgments, provided youhave an adequate basis for them and provided they are consistent with what hasbeen approved generically through the accreditation process and the guidancethat INPO has issued.Q. 118. Are documents referred to, such as NUREG-0737, still required asreferences?A. Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.8 supersedes NUREG-0737 as it relates tooperator licensing. However, there may be some aspects of NUREG-0737 whichhave been committed to in a facility training program, and the initial programmay not yet have been accredited. Those commitments are still in effect. Theyare part of the approved program, and remain so until that program is super-seded by an accredited program, and you provide the letter to the staff, as isdescribed in Generic Letter 87-07 which forwarded the Rule.Q. 119. It seems that Regulatory Guide 1.8 says a diploma or equivalent isrequired only for the shift supervisor and senior operator. ANS 3.1 requiresonly a high school diploma for licensed operators. Is that what you intend?A. Yes. The intent of the exception taken in regulatory position C.1.d. wasto eliminate the 30 and 60 semester hours of college-level education from theshift supervisor and SRO positions. The definition section in ANS 3.1 includesthe General Education Development Test as the equivalent to a high schooldiploma, and it would be acceptable for all three positions.Q. 120. 10 CFR 55 provides allowable training exceptions from this rule if asystematic approach to training is used. Reg. Guide 1.8 however, does notstate that there are allowable training exceptions from following ANSI/ANS 3.1for ROs and SROs. Please explain why exceptions were not allowed for RO andSRO training when a systematic approach is used.A. Exemptions are allowed under Section D, Implementation, of RegulatoryGuide 1.8, which states that the guidance in Section C does not apply to thosetraining programs which have been accredited under an accreditation programwhich has been endorsed by the NRC.NUREG-126230 K>WRITTEN EXAMINATIONS AND OPERATING TESTS General Issues (Including Learning Objectives and Examination Question Bank)Q. 121. Will the format of the written exams change? If so, how?A. At the present time the format of the examinations is not expected tochange, although there are numerous initiatives under way which may lead toformat changes in one way or another as we refine the process.Q. 122. The exam content states that Licensee Event Reports (LER) will be in-cluded in the exam. How is the scope of LERs determined and communicated tothe individual taking the examination?A. We expect your training program to include relevant LERs. We would samplefrom your learning objectives, but we would not necessarily be limited to those.We would not take an LER from a significantly different plant and try to adaptit to your plant. But if there were LERs that reflect either training needs oroperational safety, we are going to include those in the exam process. It maybe in the written exam or on the operating test.Q. 123. Will there be any effort by NRC to ensure a consistent level of de-tail in the facility's learning objectives?A. Yes. We have a major effort under way to evaluate the quality of learningobjectives that are submitted for an exam. This is a significant issue be-cause we have seen a large spectrum of differences in learning objectives.As a part of our examination development efforts, we have been reviewing thequality of the learning objectives submitted with materials for the 90-dayletters. We're evaluating their quality and using that as a feedback mechanisminto the evaluation process for how well accreditation is working.Where we find that the learning objectives are not adequate, we'll use othermaterials. Where they are adequate, we will use them. We intend to evolveover time to the point where we can construct an NRC exam solely using thefacility learning objectives.We have also opened our examination development training program to INPO andothers, providing information to them on how we construct examinations and onthe training that we're providing to examiners. There are also activitiesunderway within INPO to improve development of testing objectives.Q. 124. How does the Commission intend to implement written examinations basedupon the knowledge, skills, and abilities identified in the learning objectivesderived from the systematic analysis of licensed operator duties?A. It's our intent, as expressed in the Statement of Considerations, to reachthe point where the training program's learning objectives become the majorsource for our examination. We want to sample according to a scheme that looksat the most important job performance, knowledge, and abilities, and we havethat area documented with our K/A Catalogs. In fact, there's a supplement tothe PWR Catalog being published that has the same sections as the BWR Catalog.NUREG-126231 In addition, we asked a PWR and BWR panel of subject-matter experts to ratethe testing emphasis they thought we should have. That rating forms the basisof NRC's sampling plan, so we will sample the most important job content. Whatwe expect in terms of conditions and standards of performance will be driven bythe learning objectives, and that will form the basis of our testing objectives.The only slight difference between testing and learning objectives has to dowith the context in which you judge performance, because one is a time-limitedtesting situation, and the other might allow a longer training or job perform-ance period.We don't want our exam to be devoid of contact with your training program. Thepurpose is to get to the same spot. Of course we reserve the right to look atLERs and other events, and to further investigate other questions, with yourassistance, manuals, license amendments, or other materials, because even if wejudge our question in terms of your learning objectives, the material to de-velop the question and the answer has to come from something other than thelearning objective.Q. 125. What, if any, utility actions will NRC require to incorporate utilitylearning objectives into the NRC testing objectives?A. The better your materials are, the more closely they are keyed to our K/Acatalog, the easier it is for us to use them. But we're not going to requireany actions. In the 90-day letters that go out prior to the administration ofan exam, we're requesting that learning objectives be submitted, and we'reevaluating them, and if they are appropriate for use in our exam, both thewritten and the operating test, we would employ them to the extent that theyare consistent with our sampling plan in the Examiner's Handbook and the K/ACatalogs.We've been training examiners to look at learning objectives and to use themfor testing objectives. To the extent that you can provide material to theexaminer where the learning objectives provide a standard of performance andyou key the training materials in which the material to develop that questionis available, and if you know a K/A in the catalog with an importance ratingthat's above 2.5, you will have provided the basis for developing a good ques-tion and a good examination.Our experience is that the learning objectives may have conditions and standardsof performance, but the supporting training materials are not there to developthe appropriate questions or they're cast in such a way that it's unclearwhether they are related to a K/A associated with job content having a rela-tively high safety significance.We also did not want to see the "enabling objectives," because these are fortraining purposes and are not grounded in job performance. We want objectivesthat are "terminal," and have to do with job performance; and the better thematerial is that you supply, the closer our exam will mirror those objectives.We've spent a great deal of time looking at how one judges a question based onthe learning objective so that the question will elicit the kind of performanceor knowledge or response that lets us infer that the person has mastered thatparticular aspect of the job.NUREG-126232

~.) IThere's a related issue. We issued Generic Letter 87-01, which announced theavailability of the NRC Examination Question Bank, and indicated the mechanismsby which utilities could request the information on what's contained in thebank on their facility or similar facilities. It also indicated a mechanismfor you to update questions on the bank, either where we have inaccurate ref-erences or the design of the facility has changed.We purged the bank of questions that were more than two years old because someof the older questions did not meet today's quality standards. In some cases,we have only four or five-examinations on the bank for a particular utility.We want to improve that and are interested in your comments and/or questionsfor the bank. We'll also provide the bank to you for creating your own ques-tions. To the extent you provide us information that's in a format which iscompatible with loading into the bank, we can do that directly, either throughhard copy or electronically. But for security reasons, we can't give you di-rect access to the bank. We have discussed with INPO the need for an industryinitiative to validate.~a set of plant-specific questions that could be a sourcefor NRC exams.Q. 126. If the utility has established some internal guidelines of what theyexpect of the individual) will you accept those guidelines for the purposes ofwritten examinations? --A. Yes. We would havelan issue that we would discuss with the utility, thatwe would want to revise the guidelines if they did not conform to our testingblueprint based on the job-related knowledge and ability statements with highsafety significance.'Q. 127. Can we submit that in advance of the written examination, and then cometo an agreement-somewhere up front?A. It can be part of the materials that you submit in accordance with the90-day letter, and we-would consider that in developing the exam.Q. 128. You mentioned a training program for the examiners on writing thelearning objectives Howiis that program being instructed; who's teachingthat?A. We started several years back working on writing multiple choice questions,and have beenidoing one-week training sessions in all the regions, twice atheadquarters, and once each for contractors. During the one-week trainingsession, examiners converted learning objectives into testing objectives andpracticed writing testing objectives.We've shared that information-with INPO and have had INPO staff participate andtake the materials back-with them, so the information that we're using todevelop examinations is available to you through INPO, or even through the staffif you want to request it.Written Examinations and Operating Tests (Statement of Considerations)Q. 129. In the Statement of Considerations, under Part D, Written Examinationsand Operating Tests, it says: "Learning objectives derived from job-task7-1NUREG-126233 v-analyses should form the basis for licensing written examinations and operatingtests at a facility. Ultimately, the NRC testing objectives will reflect fa-cility licensee-developed learning objectives. In the interim, while programsare being developed and reviewed for accreditation, the NRC has activitiesunderway to improve the content validity of NRC examinations and operatingtests." Will NRC commit to solely using the learning objectives for plantsthat have accredited operator programs?A. No. The rule states that the learning objectives will be used in part,but that other things, like LERs, etc., will also be used.Q. 130. Why are written examinations only taken in part from learningobjectives?A. The hope is, eventually,' to take the entire written examination from learn-ing objectives. However, at this time, there are many places where thelearning objectives are somewhat incomplete or inadequate. So, we utilizeLERs and other training materials, such as lesson plans, system descriptions,and procedures, to supplement the learning objectives.Q. 131. When will NRC activities underway to improve the content validity ofNRC examinations and operating tests be complete?A. We view this an an ongoing activity. We have a number of initiativesscheduled for completion in this fiscal year, including the revised Handbook(NUREG-1121), passing-point workshop, and the supplement to the PWR K/A Cata-log (NUREG-1122) to conform to the BWR K/A Catalog (NUREG-1123).By the end of this fiscal year, a number of milestones toward meeting thatobjective will have been met. But this is a continuing process, as we worktoward a common understanding of what's necessary for assessing job perfor-mance. With the advent of the K/A Catalogs, we've made significant improve-ments in basing test content on the operator's performance-based job require-ments: that is the essence of content validity. We have used a systematicprocess involving subject matter experts. We have supplemented the PWR Cata-log, which now has a theory and component section similar to that in the BWRCatalog.In addition to that, we have been looking at alternate ways to sample the con-tent of the NRC written exam. At present ES-202 and 402 weight all four sec-tions of the exam equally. We've looked at a way of sampling according to thesections in the Catalog. The differences would reflect differences between RDand SRO positions. We'll sample more heavily in plant systems for ROs and moreheavily in emergencies that have fewer normal and more integrated plant responsesfor SROs. The final decision on that will be made based on the recommendationof a Panel made up of industry representatives and NRC contractor personnel thatwill meet May 18th through'the 22nd.We will consider the panel's recommendations to us before we make any recommen-dations to change the format of the NRC'exam. That sampling plan from our Cata-log and your input on your learning objectives should, in fact, be the essenceof a content-valid exam.NUREG-126234- Q. 132. I've heard different people say that all NRC exams are now basesK/A Catalog.' Are all NRC Examiner-Contractors held to that Catalog as astandard?i 'on theA. Examinations prepared by Contract Examiners are reviewed in the Region sothe standard for the regional Examiner and the Contract Examiner is not dif-ferent. Like regional examiners, the Contractor Examiners are required towrite-an examination which meets the-requirements of-the Examiners' standards,which now reference the Catalog and will, in-a future revision,'also referencethe handbook.'We are sensitive to feedback from the exam process.-comments generated during the exam review process.sponsive'to comments that point out any differencesand one administered by NRC examiners..1\We look at the facilityWe intend to be very re-between a contract exam*Q. 133.- Is the new rule going'to 'change the format of the exams (e.g., largelyessay-type)?A. The new rule does not alter the format of the exam. The current ExaminerStandard, ES-202, permits a maximum of 25 percent objective-type questions(e.g. multiple-choice, true-false), a maximum of 25 percent longer essay-typequestions, and a minimum of 50 percent short-answer questions in Sections 2-4and 6-8 of the exam. Exam Sections 1 and 5 (reactor theory and thermodynamics)can consist of a greater portion of objective-type'questions.We're working on'thetheory and componentissue of a generic exam--a prototype, objective exam foroperation. 'Q. 134. Have you pilot-tested Form 157. or have'you had any'practice with it?-A. No. The new Form 157 will be available after May 26.as necessary, based on our feedback from field use.Written Examination: Operators (Subpart E, Section 55.41)We'll be revising-itQ. 135. The items in 55.41(b)(10)operator knowledge. What level ofoperator? 7' 'and (13) have previously been for seniorknowledge is expected for the reactor.1A. Part of 55.41(b)(10),'has been for operator knowledge in that it concernsnormal, abnormal, and emergency operating procedures for the facility. Forthe administrative part, the reactor operator would be tested for the depthof knowledge required for his job position in the administrative area becauseoperators get involved with administration at times. And Part (13), "Proceduresand Equipment Available'for Handl'ng and Disposal of Radioactive Materials andEffluents," would also be geared to RO'job requirements at your site.Q. 136. Part 55.41, "Content," does not specifically address that licensedoperator candidates need to know Technical Specifications, yet the examiner'standard, Section ES-202, discusses the need to know Technical Specifications.What -is the reason for this difference? Is ES-202 correct in its applicationfor Technical Specification knowledge?I NUREG-126235 A. Section 55.41(5) addresses the Technical Specifications. We expect opera-tors to use Technical Specifications as appropriate to their job. Reactor opera-tors, as in 55.41(5), are expected to know limiting conditions, particularlythose things they should recognize and communicate to the SRO in a timely manner.The same thing goes for the SRO. We don't expect SROs to be engineers. Sorequired job performance in your systematic evaluation, plus our K/A Catalog,should give you an idea of the level of specificity. We intend to revise theexaminer standards to give our examiners better guidance. Right now, it's notas clear as it could be, but required job performance is the key, and if, forsome reason, you feel you use Technical Specifications differently than we caninterpret, you should call that to the Region's attention and discuss it longbefore the exam occurs.There is clearly a difference between our expectations for ROs and SROs by virtueof SROs directing the activities of others. The SRO must know all aspects oflicense conditions. He approves work, work orders, and other things whichrequire a knowledge of Technical Specifications beyond the material covered inthe operator's written exam.We don't expect the SRO to be able to develop a basis for a requirement on hisown. We expect him to understand what the requirement is, and be able to carryit out. That's the difference that we tried to articulate in these two sections.An RO doesn't have to know about approving surveillances, yet surveillances arecovered in the Technical Specifications. An RO does need to know about limitson operation of the plant, as they relate to the list of items under the writtenexamination.Q. 137. For facilities that have an approved INPO-accredited performance-basedtraining program, what percentage of the written and/or oral exam questionsadministered by NRC will come from the facilities' objective-based exam bank,or at least from the facilities' training objectives? From Attachment A (toGeneric Letter 87-07) it appears that all the exam questions for accreditedfacilities will come from the facilities' training objectives.A. Eventually, we'd like to use the facilities' learning objectives. But,it's our experience that we have varying degrees of polished objectives. We'vealso found that even when there is a good objective, where the conditions ofperformance and the standards of performance are explicit, and the learning andthe mastery is all tied to job performance, the supporting materials submittedwith the 90-day letter do not allot examiners to develop the kind of questionthat will elicit the appropriate material to decide whether the candidate hasmastered that objective. So while the objective may be good, the supportingmaterial isn't sufficient to develop the right kind of question.We're working on this. And we key the content of our exam right now to the K/ACatalog. We do not sample those items that have been found to have a low im-portance to safety. But we have to rely on your analysis to help determinewhat's important on a plant-specific basis.And this is where there's some breakdown at the moment. The better the learningobjectives in terms of their explicit statement of conditions and standards, thebetter the supporting material, and the better it's tied to our Catalog, thebetter the whole system works.NUREG-126236 But don't read into that that we would-be limited to those objectives. We wouldsample, we would tie it to those'objectives; but if there isn't an objective inthe safety-related system that we think is important, we may create our owntest objective and cover it on the exam.We're going to try very hard to ensure that it is safety related, it is opera-tionally oriented, and it is performance based. Obviously we would want tohave good justification for asking that kind of a question.Many of you have used the INPO Job Analysis in your own plant-specific analysis.And part of the reason that we tied our analysis at the generic level to theINPO Analysis was so that the system names and numbers, and the resultingmaterial, would be easily keyed at the plant-specific level to the K/A Catalog.Q. 138. What will the Commission do to ensure that operator exams are bothvalid and reliable from a psychometric perspective? 'A. Many things. One: We're working on a sampling plan developed by subject-matter experts that will better reflect the job'of the operator as opposed to,the four evenly weighted written exam sections currently in the Examiner'sStandard.Two: We'll be sampling only those items that received a high importance ratingto ensure the exam's content validity.Three: We have a meeting on May 18th in which we're bringing together anotherpanel of experts first to evaluate our proposed sampling plan and document thebasis for our passing point.Four: We are conducting continuous, extensive training with our examiners onwriting and reviewing questions, and we are evaluating feedback from the industryon the quality of our examinations.Finally, we are continuing to make improvements to the exam question bank, whichwill include a validation process using statistical techniques to eliminate poorquestions.Q. 139. The statement of considerations makes the following statement: "Ulti-mately, the NRC test objectives will reflect facility licensee developed learn-ing objectives.. ." With an INPO-accredited program already developed from ajob-task analysis'(JTA), does our training standard (site-specific learningobjectives) supersede the NRC Knowledge and Abilities--Catalog? How do we getregional concurrence that they will test to our training standard?A. It's our intent to use site-specific learning objectives as the basis forour testing objectives. However, if we detect errors of commission or omissionin the site-specific reference material (including learning objectives), weobviously will not shapeour exam content to those errors.Q. 140. Criminal violation only covers persons who willfully violate the AtomicEnergy Act or NRC's regulations, and does not'apply to situations such asdiscussions after an examination is administered or when a previously admin-istered examination is used as a practice exam. What is the attitude of theNRC concerning distribution of the facility's examination bank to the examinees?NUREG-126237 A. NRC has no specific policy concerning the distribution of the facility'sown examination bank to their examinees. While some portion of training may begiven using previously administered examinations as references, this should notbe interpreted as NRC endorsement or acceptance of such a practice exclusively.Written Examination: Senior Operators (Subpart E, Section 55.43)Q. 141. The Commission Policy Statement on Technical Specifications and im-provements may result in a substantial increase in scope and documentation.Will any effort be made to limit the knowledge required of senior operators tothose elements of the Technical Specification basis that are essential for safeoperation?A. Yes. We have an ongoing program looking at the issue of what needs to beexamined at the SRO level, as opposed to the RO level. And we are working withthe people developing these new Tech Specs and intend to make sure that we areproducing a performance-based exam.That's not to say that there won't be some additional exam material that comesfrom the new Technical Specifications. But, again, it will be performancebased, job relevant, and safety-significant material, and we will provide ampleguidance to the examiners, in the examiner standard, as this program develops.Q. 142. When we were developing standardized Techical Specifications, the re-quirement was that an operator know from memory, and be able to apply "one-hour-or-less," action statements from the Tech Specs. Since standard TechSpecs have come in, there are now well over a hundred one-hour or less actionstatements from Technical Specifications. Is the policy, or the guidance fromthe Commission still the same, to commit those to memory, recognizing that theutilities do not rely on nor require the operators to act from memory in thatsituation?A. We are dealing with performance-based knowledge that an operator needs toknow. Specifically, if the information is appropriate to the job, if it isin the K/A Catalogs with a high importance rating, he should know that informa-tion. If there is not a specific knowledge or ability associated with it orthose that are have a low importance rating, then normally it would not needto be examined. However, there may be procedual steps or other indicationsthat cause him to look into the Technical Specifications. The method you useprocedurally in the plant for these indications, through performance-basedtesting under certain circumstances, such as procedural or event-related pro-blems, would be the method that would be followed by NRC. We don't have anyblanket rules that require memorization of everything in Technical Specifica-tions that has to be done in less than an hour. That is not our policy.Ensuring that our examinations are operationally oriented and job related isour policy.Q. 143. Senior operators are required to know the facility operating limitations inthe Technical Specifications and their bases. If and when the WestinghouseOwner's Group completes development work and gains acceptance for the TechnicalSpecification MERITS program, this will vastly increase the bases section of theTechnical Specification. Will the NRC position change regarding the require-ments to know the Technical Specification bases if this new program isimplemented?NUREG-126238 A. No. As we implement improvements to Tech Specs, we hope to reduce theirsize'substantially as a result of this program and to do a better job ofdescribing the why's associated with the limits and the underlying assumptionsthat relate to them.We hope that in the long run we will better define the knowledge that a senioroperator should have related to the Technical Specifications and their bases.We don't'expect that the volume of the bases to increase to several three-inchnotebooks. It should be significantly reduced compared with what's contained'in the FSAR. It's going to require a topical report submission and an approvalby the staff before-it can beimplemented on a plant-specific basis. We willbe looking at generic bases',' and'there will be an opportunity for utilities tocomment.Our intent is not to add superfluous information; it needs to be related to thejob.Q. 144. Section 55.43(b)(3) refers to the facility licensee procedures required toobtain authority for design and operating changes in the facility. What is theintent of this? Should the SRO understand the process-the licensee goes aboutin obtaining a design change?A. There may be administrative procedures which would allow, for example, twoSRO's on a back shift to change a-procedure, as long as they don't change theintent of the procedure. Or, there may'be other aspects of the 50.59 reviewprocess which an SRO is-held accountable for knowing. He may be the shiftsupervisor, on shift at the time, responsible for those activities. And it'sthat type of administrative procedure we are addressing.Q. 145. Therefore, are we talking about temporary alterations, not designchanges, or permanent license'changes?A. He needs to understand what he's approving when he approves the work to bedone in the plant. 'We're'looking principally at those things which he can ap-prove; deviatation from a procedure, an alternative approach, etc. The 50.59type process, how those changes are controlled, and what it means when he signsoff to approve a work package, is likewise important. This process may changethe design of the facility, or change the way the facility is operated by aprocedure. For clarification, there has been no change in this area from theprevious Part 55.Q. 146. What maintenanceiactivities are included in 55.43(b)(4)?A. Section (b)(4) talks about radiation hazards thatrmay arise during normaland abnormal situations, including maintenance activities, and various contami-nation conditions. A'common item may, for example, be a radiation work permit(RWP). He may be responsible for' signing off, either'in 'concurrence or approval,depending on the 'facility, on the RWP,'so lie'would be expected'to have site-specific knowledge'lin that'area.Q. 147. Part 55.43 does not specifically address emergency plan implementation.This is addressed'in Part 55.45. Will the senior operators continue to be askedto classify events, given a'specific scenario, into four categories (UE, Alert,SAE, GE) from memory on the written examinations?NUREG-126239 A. Item 5 in Section 55.43(b), stipulates that SROs must be able to addressthe "assessment of facility conditions and selection of appropriate proceduresduring normal, abnormal, and emergency conditions." However, neither ROs norSROs are required to classify events from memory.Operating Tests: Content (Subpart E, Section 55.45(a))Q. 148. Is there a definition of plant equipment that could affect the releaseof radioactive materials to the environment, per 10 CFR 55.45(a)(8)?A. There are many systems and many controls that an individual can operatethat could cause a release; operators are required to understand these systemsand controls, which are the responsibility of licensed personnel.Q. 149. Does 10 CFR 55.45(a)(10) imply that operators must perform exposureshielding calculations?A. That depends on how these calculations are made at your facility. If youhave an on-shift health physicist or, in an emergency, an STA, then we wouldnot ask operators to do the shielding calculations. But if the SRO typicallychecks such calculations, then we may ask the SRO to check one.Q. 150. Items 12 and 13 of Section 55.45(a), were reworded to include thephrase "as appropriate." What is the significance of this phrase for the Com-mission to classify this change as "major" in the final Regulation?A. The comparison that we're making in the Statement of Considerations, Sec-tion IID(2), is between the proposed rule published in November 1984 and thefinal rule. Items 12 and 13 were significantly rewritten between the proposedand the final rule. To clarify, we have made sure that you're held accountablefor performing as appropriate to the assigned position. So ROs are not expectedto pass a test at the SRO level.Q. 151. How will you evaluate Item 13, "Teamwork," in the operating test? I'mtalking about the operating test itself, when you have to evaluate one singlecandidate on how he reacts and interreacts with the team?A. You could put some licensed operators on the team with him, and we wouldjust put an examiner with the individual taking the exam. You could have oneof your instructors standing there, as we have done in the past.Q. 152. How would you evaluate this if we didn't have a simulator?A. It is the responsibility of the examiner to structure his operating testscenarios for the Integrated Plant Operations portion of the test that wouldcreate situations that would challenge the candidate in competencies G(communication/crew interface) and H (responsibilities/supervision). Obviouslythis would require a discussion format since the operating test without a simu-lation facility is a one-on-one test. For example, a scenario could have anSRO candidate evacuate the control room. He would then be expected to shut downthe reactor from the local shutdown panel. He should be able to talk throughhow he would utilize his resources, including direction, communication, andreport backs. Questions would be phrased as follows: What would you directNUREG-126240 the BOP to do? What reports"do you'expect to receive from the RO upon reactortrip? How would you verify a questionable report from the BOP/RO? How do youevaluate the licensed operator's use of nonlicensed operators during localoperation of an auxiliary feed pump?' 'Q. 153. Part 55.45(a) contains a new.evaluation criterion which requires anapplicant to demonstrate the ability to function within the control room teamas appropriate to .the assigned position ard in such a way that the facility li-censee's procedures areiadhered to and so-that the limitations in its license:and amendments are not violated. Is this criterion intended to be evaluatedusing the manipulation criteria-addressed on the operating examination reportcontained in ES-302 which requiresthat an applicant: (1) follow procedures,(2) observe and check instrumentation, (3) exhibit dexterity and a feel forconsole operationsi. Or, will this evaluation be addressed in afuture revisionof ES-302?A. This criterion is addressed in the operating test using the existing ES-302with the new' Form 157.' -Sped fically, the 'form identifies, in competencies G andH (both with and without a'simulator),, the 'evaluation of communication/crewinteraction and responsibility/suppervision.!Waiver of Examination and Test Requirements (Subpart E, Section 55.47)Q.: 154. In 10 CPR 55.47, what is a qomparable'facility?A. This question addresses the waiver of written examination and operatingtest requirements. We wouldilook at each waiver on a case-by-case basis, andmake a determination as to whether or'not the facility was, for licensing pur-poses, "'close enough."'* , ; ,~ ~ ,- -' .'NUREG-126241 SIMULATION FACILITIES Written Examinations and Operating Tests: Implementation (Subpart E,Section 55.45(b))Q. 155. Will NRC continue to examine operators on plant-referenced simulationfacilities following the effective rule date, but prior to the submittal of thesimulator certification?A. Yes.so.If we're giving exams on your simulator now, we will continue to doQ. 156. Will NRC examine operators on nonplant-referenced simulators for thoseutilities that have accredited training programs and use a nonplant-referencedsimulators between the date that the new rule becomes effective and simulationfacility approval by NRC is achieved?A. We anticipate no change from what we're doing today.Q. 157. Our facility will not have a plant-referenced simulator available fortraining until the first quarter of 1990. It is assumed that operating testswill consist entirely of plant walk-throughs until such time as a plant ref-erenced simulator is certified. Is this a correct assumption?A. Yes, but in the event the utility were to start using that simulator toevaluate candidates prior to the time at which they chose to certify it, we'dhave no problem with the examiners using it to conduct operating tests.Q. 158. Are the provisions of 55.45(b)(2)(i), and 55.45(b)(2)(iii) mutuallyexclusive? In other words, if the utility plans to meet the provisions of55.45(b)(2)(iii) by purchasing a simulator during the 46-month period, doesthe utility need to submit a plan per (b)(2)(i) for the simulator to be useduntil the plant-referenced simulator is certified?A. No. If you intend to certify a simulation facility on Form 474, you have46 months from the effective date of the Rule to do that, and you do not needto submit to us a plan, or an application, prior to that time. If, however,we do not see any evidence that there are plans in the works for a certifiedsimulation facility, and if we have not seen a plan from you for a noncertifiedsimulation facility, we'll probably get in touch with you to find out what yourintentions are.Q. 159. We currently have a site-specific simulator, and it has been used toadminister the simulator portion of the operating tests. Do we have 46 monthsfrom the effective date of the rule to submit Form NRC-474, "Simulation FacilityCertification"? Will the simulator tests continue to be administered on ournoncertified simulator before we submit the Form 474? Under what conditionswould NRC refuse to administer operating tests on the simulator?A. Yes, you have 46 months to submit Form 474, and, yes, the simulator willcontinue to be used for the conduct of exams until you submit that Form 474 oruntil you reach the four-year deadline. NRC would refuse to administer operat-ing tests if the simulation facility has not been certified by the deadline orif, after it has been certified, an inspection proves that it is unable to meetNUREG-126242 the requirements of conducting an operating exam.- And, if certification ispulled, then it needs to be recertified.Q. 160. For simulators that are not plant specific, when the regulation goesinto effect in May,iare you going to start giving nonplant-specific simulatorexams?A. No. We do not intend to administer such exams. Those few plants withoutplant-referenced simulators will be handled on a case-by-case basis.For clarification, once a utility begins to use a simulator to evaluate itsoperators, we would retain the option to use it to conduct our operatingtests, even though it may not yet be approved or certified.It's our intent to continue with business as usual from the effective date ofthe regulation until such time as you either have-an approved simulation facil-ity, or you have certified a simulation facility. Or, of course, the four-yeardeadline arrives.In other words, if we presently conduct operating exams in a walk-through becauseyou do not have a plant-referenced simulator or you do not have an acceptablesimulation facility, we-would continue to conductexams on a walk-through basis.But if you do obtain a simulation facility between now and the date that youchose to certify it, if you find the simulation facility is acceptable for youruse in evaluating operators then we will find that same simulation facility.,acceptable for our use in evaluating operators, even prior to the time it iscertified or approved.One other clarification. It does not matter who owns a simulation facility,or where it is located--the key is the plant to which it is referenced. Andthe facility licensee'is the one who must certify that simulation facility foruse regardless'of whether that facility licensee is the owner of that simulationfacility or not. -Q. 161. Several simulators are still in the manufacturing pipeline, to be de-livered in the next two years, while a few are still just beginning their pro-curement activities. Is this plan required within one year regardless ofwhether the utility is in the process of procuring a simulator?-A. The plan referred to is required only for those utilities which are notplanning to submit a certification on Form 474. If you are procuring a certi-fied simulation facility, there is no plan required and there is no applicationfor approval required, regardless'of where in the pipeline your procurement is.If you are not procuring a simulation facility that is to be certified on Form474, then there is a plan required and there is an application for approval.Then the answer is yes, we' would expect that plan to be submitted to us within'one year of the effective date of the regulation, regardless of where you maybe in the procurement cycle.Q. 162. Consider the'utility undergoing the simulator procurement process rightnow'. There is certainly the realistic possibility that that simulator willNUREG-126243 not be delivered and declared ready for training until sometime in 1990. Atthat time it will be approximately two and a half years since design datafreeze.In that period it's reasonable to expect that the utility would not be able tomeet the requirement of ANSI/ANS 3.5, 1985 that the plant reference simulatorbe current within 12 or 18 months of the reference plant, to which you areattesting when you sign the material-false-statement on Form 474. Does thismean that this utility would have to submit a plan for an alternative within12 months of May 1987?A. We would still expect a certification from those utilities on Form 474,rather than the application for approval. If necessary, you would take excep-tion to meeting some of the requirements of ANS 3.5. These would have to beidentified and described, along with a description of when and how they wouldbe resolved. There is a provision on Form 474 for this information to besupplied.Q. 163. In other words, they would not be held to the statement that says theyare or are not in compliance with ANSI 3.5?A. That is correct. The facility licensee would address them as exceptions toASS 3.5.-Q. 164. I didn't see on the proposed Form 474 an area that addresses exceptions.A. There is such a block on the form. It might not have been on an earlyversion of the form; but on the final version you will see an area near thetop which indicates exceptions taken to the standard.That's not an unusual circumstance just for those who are buying new simulationfacilities. Because design modifications are made in the plant, you may at thetime of certification have modifications made in the plant that you have notyet put into the simulation facility.The process provides for reference plant data and design data for the simula-tion facility, and there can be as much as two years' difference between thetime these two conform with one another. If you're not in conformance at thetime you certify, if there's some exception, identify that in the exceptionssections and indicate on what schedule you're going to correct it.If we disagree with the exceptions, we'll visit you. But if you've done areasonable job of identifying them and we still conclude that we can conductan operating test, we'll accept that certification.Q. 165. In Section 55.45, implementation schedule and simulation facility cer-tifications, what is the relationship of the two timetables provided in(b)(2)(iii), which is 46 months, and (b)(3)(iii)-, which is 60 days?A. There is no relationship between them. The 46-month requirement in(b)(2)(iii) refers to. facility licensees, which includes anyone who has a doc-keted application. The 60-day requirement in (b)(3)(iii) refers only to whatwe call facility applicants, which includes only those without docketed appli-cations. So you can ignore that 60-day requirement.NUREG-126244 Q. 166. Do we have a requirement to certifyto its being used for an operating exam?a simulation facilityto NRC priorA. No. You have a requirement to certify a simulation facility to NRC no laterthan four years after the-effective date of the regulation. Prior to thatfour-year deadline, it can still be used for conducting operating exams whetherit is certified or not..Q. 167. Due to the extensive use of the simulator for training, there may betimes that meeting the 25 percent performance testing requirements within 12.months of the last set of tests is not possible. What is the allowable timetable tolerance regarding this situation? For example, is it permissible toperform 50 percent testing in one year and no testing in the next year, as longas 100 percent testing occurs every four years?A. The regulation provides, in 55.45(b)(4)(vii) and (b)(5)(vi), that perform-ance testing be done at the rate of approximately 25 percent per year on acontinuing four-year cycle. The goal is to ensure the ongoing testing and up-grading of the simulation facility, and to assure that it is maintained on aconsistent basis with the status of the plant. You must present to us,. on Form.474, your performance testing schedule. To the extent that it must deviatefrom 25 percent per year, if it must deviate, you need to let us know just whatthose deviations are and we will have to evaluate it case-by-case. It s safeto say that performing 50 percent of the tests in one year, and no tests inthe next year would not meet the intent of the regulation.For clarification, we really don't want to see the minutiae of your performancetesting schedule, which tests are to be run on which days of which months.We're looking at an annualized 25 percent per year basis, and that's the blockof time in which we would like to see your performance testing scheduled. Anychanges that may need to be made to that schedule, you need to tell us about,based on that annual block.Q. 168. What is the required retention period for simulation facility-testprocedures, modification documentation, and discrepancy reports?A. Four years is the record retention period. But at any given time, you mayhave accumulated and held on to more than four years' worth of data, becauseyou are performing your performance tests at the rate of 25 percent per year.So if you certify, hypothetically, at time zero and then you submit your firstfour-year report on the four-year anniversary of that initial certification, atthat time in year four you can discard the results of the performance testingthat you had for the initial certification. Then when you submit-your nextfour-year report at year eight,.you can discard all the performance testingdocumentation that you used to submit the first four-year report.So it's a four-year period, but as you accumulate the tests at 25 percent peryear, you're going to be retaining these test results until the time comes atyour next report to discard it.Q. 169. Regarding decertification of a plant-referenced simulator; What processwill be used to decertify a simulator? Will-an NRC examiner be able to decertifya simulator based on his observations of simulator performance during an NRCexam?NUREG-126245 A. No. An examiner will not be able to decertify a simulation facility basedupon his observations. He will report those observations to NRC, and the staffmay use that information to perform an audit or an inspection. "Decertification"can occur only as a result of an inspection which finds that the simulationfacility is incapable of being used for the conduct of an operating test.Q. 170. Section 55.45 requires that within one year after its effective date,each facility licensee proposing to use a simulation facility must submit aplan detailing how and when their simulation facility will be developed andsubmitted for approval. Must a utility that operates dual units at the sameplant and that currently obtains a multi-unit operator license from the NRCsubmit this plan for the unit not being replicated?A. The key issue is the similarity of the two units. The availability ofcurrent multi-unit licenses would lead us to believe that you do not need tosubmit an application for approval for the simulation facility for those units.We in all likelihood will accept certifications on Form 474 with the exceptionsnoted for each unit.Q. 171. If a utility with multiple units believesdissimilar to support Form 474 certification, whatdoes the Commission wish to see in the applicationthat the units are tooformat requirements, if any,for approval?A. Here is an example of what we'd expect. Let's assume that you have adual unit control room and that the control rooms are identical with the excep-tion that they're mirror images of each other. Your physical fidelity compari-son in accordance with the standard would identify as an exception the mirror-image layout.One Form 474 would indicate that the mirror-image issue was a difference, butyou conclude that's acceptable for an operating test. And you'd reference thecertification form for the other unit; that is, you'd identify all the otherexceptions that you may have. So one is tied to the other. That way we get aform that says it's certified for each plant to which it's referenced.Where you have a simulator now which is on site and which replicates two units,we would expect you to use the certification process.Q. 172. Several utilities are not planning to obtain plant-referenced simulators.They prefer to use other simulation devices. Assume that a facility licenseehas constructed and is operating a plant-referenced simulator that meets theprovision of Regulatory Guide 1.149 and ANSI 3.5 and has been certified to theNRC for use for operators and senior operators who operate the reference plantor are candidates for a license at that plant. A second utility wishes to usethe simulator as their simulation device rather than construct and operate aplant referenced simulator. What procedure must the second utility follow toobtain approval to use that simulator?A. The answer assumes that the utility who wants to use it is treating At asa noncertified, nonplant-referenced simulator. It does not matter who builtthe simulator, who owns it, where it's located. The facility licensee whoNUREG-126246 wants to use a particular simulation facility for conducting operating testsis the organization that is required to file a certification or to apply forapproval to use it. So in this case, the procedure that the second utilitymust follow would .be to submit a plan within a year, followed by the applica-tion for NRC approval to use that simulation facility, whether they are theowner of it or not.Q. 173. Has the staff developed guidance and/or criteria regarding the use of acertified plant-referenced simulator by individuals other than those from thereferenced plant?A. It is possible for-any particular simulation facility to be certified asreferenced to more than one plant, to the extent that those plants are similar.But only the facility licensee who wishes to use a simulation facility-for itsreference plant should submit the certification for its use. So if one simu-lation facility is intended to be used by several different licensees fordifferent plants, then we would expect to see several different certificationforms coming in, one for each of those facility licensees.,.Q. 174. Does this guidance apply to facility licensees that wish to use anotherfacility licensee's plant referenced simulator?A. Yes, but there are some very practical issues that utilities are going tohave to address in the area of configuration control, plant design changes,and getting those plant design changes referenced back into the simulator.Some of those can be taken care of with software, by having a different datapack, tapes, etc. Others are going to be very difficult to take care of wherethey relate to control board location or systems that you have on the devicethat are different. Clearly, where two utilities want to use the same simula-tion facility, they are going to have to work out agreements with each other asto how they are going to maintain configuration control such that the samedevice can be used for the operating test at each utility.We have not precluded that a facility may certify a simulation facility ownedby someone else to its reference plant; but the requirements for having anappropriate configuration control system still exist, and you must still followthe ANSI standard. So that if you get into that mode, you may find it diffi-cult over the long term.Q. 175. Assume that an entity has constructed and is operating a plant-referenced simulator that meets the provisions of Regulatory.Guide 1.149 andANSI/ANS 3.5-1985, and has been certified by NRC for use by operators andsenior operators at the reference plant, or who are candidates for license.A utility wishes to use the above simulator as their simulation device ratherthan construct and operate a plant-referenced simulator. What procedure mustthe utility follow to obtain approval to use the above simulator?A. Only facility licensees are to certify simulation facilities to NRC orrequest approval for simulation facilities. If an entity means a facilitylicensee under 10 CFR Part 50, then that's fine. If it means some otherorganizational body, then that would not be acceptable for certifying, orNUREG-126247 applying for approval of a simulation facility. It does not matter whetherthat utility owns that simulation facility. It does not matter where thatsimulation facility is located, but it is the utility who must certify, orapply for approval to use it.If that simulation facility referred to is referenced to a facility licensee'splant, then the process to be followed is certification on Form 474. If it isnot referenced to the facility licensee's plant, then the proper approach wouldbe submittal of a plan within a year, followed by application for NRC approval.Q. 176. Title 10 CFR 55.45(b)(4)(i) states, "In accordance with the plan sub-mitted pursuant to Paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (b)(3)(i) of this section, as appli-cable, submit an application for approval of the simulation facility to theCommission, in accordance with the schedule in Paragraph (b)(2)(ii) or (b)(3)(ii)of this section, as appropriate." What performance tests are required and whatstandard is used to evaluate whether the tests are satisfactory or not?A. To the extent applicable even to those simulation facilities that will notbe certified, ANS 3.5, as endorsed by Reg Guide 1.149, is the standard to beused. The performance tests include the malfunctions identified in Sec-tion 3.1.2 of the standard to be done at a rate of approximately 25 percentper year over an ongoing four-year cycle; the performance tests that are speci-fied in Appendix A of the standard, also at the rate of 25 percent per year;and the operability tests identified in Appendix B to the standard that are tobe done annually.The criterion .for the performance of these tests is that the simulation facil-ity must be capable of being used for the conduct of the operating tests whichare identified in Section 55.45(a) of the regulation, and the staff will inspectsimulation facilities against that requirement.Our definition of "plant-referenced simulator" differs from the ANSI standarddefinition in that we require that a simulation facility be capable of beingused with the plant's control room procedures, and we would inspect against theability to use those procedures as well.Q. 177. Sections 55.45(b)(2)(l) and (ii) state that within one year a plan shallbe submitted for a simulation facility (other than a plant-referenced simulator),and within 42 months an application for use of the simulation facility must besubmitted. When will the facility licensee know if the plan for the simulationfacility is acceptable to the NRC? What criteria will NRC use to determineacceptability? Can the plan be modified after the first submittal?A. The minimum acceptance criteria for nonplant-referenced simulators assimulation facilities include the capability for conducting the operating testsidentified in Section 55.45(a) and their ability to operate under the use ofthe control room procedures.The nonplant-referenced simulator alone or in combination with other devicesmust demonstrate acceptability for conducting these operating tests using con-trol room procedures.NUREG-126248 The staff will review the plans for such simulation facilities against thecriteria specified in the regulation for the conduct of the operating tests;and to the extent applicable, we will also apply the requirements of ANS 3.5as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.149 even for nonplant-referencedsimulators.The staff intends promptly to inform any facility licensee if the staff's re-view of the plan or the application submitted is not satisfactory for beingable to conduct these exams.We plan to meet with the small group of facility-licensees who have indicatedan intention to request staff approval of simulation facilities during theyear following the effective date of the regulation and prior to the deadlinefor their submittal of a plan for application for approval.Finally, although we expect that our initial meetings with these few facilitylicensees will result in sufficiently specific guidance that modifications toplans won't be needed after submittal, we don't want to preclude such modifica-tions if the facility licensee judges them to be necessary or desirable.Q. 178. The preparation of a simulation facility plan will cost money and re-sources. If an submitted simulation facility plan is not acceptable, the NRCshould let the utility know it is wasting its time as soon as possible. If autility submits a plan for an "approved simulation facility" before May 26,1988 will the utility receive an-indication of whether or not the NRC willapprove the simulation facility? Or, will the NRC approve the simulationfacility only after application within the 42-month period stated in the rule?A. The NRC will review the plan submitted by each facility licensee whichproposes to use a simulation facility pursuant to Section 55.45(b)(1)(i). Thefacility licensee will be provided the results of such review. However, ap-proval of a simulation facility (in accordance with Section (b)(4)(ii)) pro-posed pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)(i) will only be considered after receipt ofan application submitted in accordance with Section 55.45(b)(4).Q. 179. When a simulation facility evaluation is conducted by the NRC, plantoperators may be used to perform the operations using plant procedures. Inthis case, are the operators performing on a "no risk" basis to their licenses?If not, will the operators receive-credit for an operating test? Could cer-tified instructors be used to demonstrate the simulation facility evaluationtest instead of plant licensed operators?A. During a simulator evaluation, no evaluation will be made of plant opera-tors. If clearly unacceptable performance -is identified, the operators andspecifics of their performance will be identified to the facility licensee forappropriate action. Qualified simulator instructors would be acceptable fordemonstrating simulator performance.Q. 180. When a malfunction isa performance test?used during training can we take credit for it asNUREG-126249 A. If all of the requirements of the Perfomance Test including planning,scheduling and documentation as required on Form 474 are met, credit may betaken for completion of the Performance Test.Q. 181. Paragraph 55.45(b)(4)(i)(B) states "A description of the cbmponents ofthe simulation facility which are intended to be used for each part of theoperating test" must be included as part of a facility's application for ap-proval of simulation facilities. Please elaborate. Does "intended" mean"can?"A. The word "intended" means that the listed component is that which thefacility licensee plans to use for the evaluation of a specific one of the 13items specified in 55.45(a).Q. 182. Assuming that a utility were to submit a plan to certify a non-reference plant simulator as a simulation facility, what minimum criteria wouldthis facility be required to meet (since operator testing using reference plantprocedures would be limited or not possible) and what aspects of the non-reference simulator would disqualify the device from certification as a simula-tion facility?A. The minimum criteria for approval of simulation facility are contained in55.45(b)(4)(ii), which requires that it be suitable for the conduct of operat-ing tests for the facility licensee's reference'plant. The operating testrequires that the 13 items listed in 55.45(a) be able to be adequately eval-uated, and that plant procedures be used. Further details of simulation facil-ity characteristics necessary for NRC certification are contained in RegulatoryGuide 1.149 and ANSI/ANS-3.5-1985. For clarification, a non-plant-referencedsimulator would be developed following a plan and then an application for NRCapproval. It would not be certified using NRC Form 474.Q. 183. For utilities which have not yet received simulation devices from theirrespective vendors, when will they be required to undergo simulator examina-tions as part of their operating examination? When ready for training? Whencertified by the utility? When utilized by the facility as an evaluation tool?Does the above answer change for any facility which currently possesses asimulation device, but asks that it not be used for NRC examinations untilsuch time that it is certified?A. No simulation facilities will be required to be used in the conduct ofoperating examinations until May 26, 1991, unless they have been certified tothe NRC or approved (after application) by the NRC earlier. However, if asimulation facility is used by the facility licensee as an evaluation tool,the NRC will use it for exams as well. This would hold true despite anyrequest by the utility that it not be used until certified.Regulatory Guide 1.149Q. 184. In order for a utility to comply with ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985, it would haveto use a full-scope nuclear power plant control room simulator. The standardstates the following under Section 1, Scope: "Also excluded are part-task orlimited scope simulators intended for specialized training or familarization."NUREG-126250 This means that non-full-scope simulators would clearly be excluded from theStandard, and, hence, a simulation facility that does not consist solely of afull-scope simulator has no guidance or standard which a utility may use toobtain NRC approval. The previous statement leads us to the following conclu-sions: If Reg. Guide 1.149 and ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985 become the only standard fordetermining the acceptability of a simulation facility, the simulation facilitymust be a full-scope simulator, is that correct?A. No. Regulatory Guide 1.149, in regulatory position (c)(2), takes exceptionto those segments of the Standard that were just cited. The Reg Guide says thatsimulation facilities, as defined in Section 55.4 of the Regulation (and thatincludes the plant, and potentially other simulation devices) should meetapplicable requirements of the Standard. Also remember that Regulatory -Guide 1.149 is only one acceptable means of meeting the requirements of theRegulation, and that facility licensees may propose other approaches to meet-ing the Regulation.We'intend to evaluate those simulation facilities which are other than certifiedplant-referenced simulators on a case-by-case basis, once we get to the point ofdealing only with the applicable portions of the Standard.Q.-.185. IfURegulatory Guide 1.149 and ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985 do not represent theonly standard for determining the acceptability of a simulation facility, willNRC identify the minimum standards and criteria that are acceptable to them fornon-full-scope simulators?A. Those two documents do describe the only standards. But Regulatory Guide1.149 is a Guide, it is not a regulation. A facility licensee-may proposealternative ways to comply with the regulations in Part 55, other than thesubmittal of the information in Regulatory Guide 1.149.Q. 186. Does NRC continue to'endorse the requirement in ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985 toperform annual operability tests? If so, should this be part of the 25 percenttesting, or should it be done annually?A. Yes. We endorse Appendix B on operability testing, and as the standardrequires, this must be done annually. This is not a part of the 25 percentperformance testing.Q. 187. Section C4 of Reg. Guide 1.149 specifies that reference plant modifica-tions be reviewed annually against the simulator and that the simulator updatedesign data be revised as appropriate,,and that the first such annual reviewand update should take place within one year following the facility licensee'scertification. Does this mean we have until a year after certification tomatch the simulator update design database to the reference plant or 18 monthsafter'simulator operational date, as specified in ANS 3.5, Section 5.2?A. No. According to Section 5.2 of ANS 3.5, you start with a database whichmay, for nonoperating plants, be based on predicted data. Eighteen monthsafter the simulator is ready for training, your simulator update design datamust include available plant data, unless the simulator is on line before theplant, in which case you have 18 months from the date that the plant becomesoperational. In accordance with the standard, it's whichever is operationallater, the plant or the simulator.NUREG-126251 Section C4 of Regulatory Guide 1.149 refers not to the development of this updatedesign database, but rather to the annual review of reference plant modificationsthat are called for in the same Section of the standard, the results of whichmust be added to the update design database.The standard says, "Reference plant modifications shall be reviewed at leastonce per year, and the simulator update design data shall be reviewed asappropriate." Section 5.3 of the standard goes on to say that the simulatorshall be modified as required within 12 months. It is this cycle of the annualreview'df plant modifications, followed within 12 months by simulator modifica-tion as required, that we expect will begin with your certification on Form 474.The rest of Section 5.2 addresses when your database must include actual plantdata. And the two time schedules are somewhat independent.You must still base the simulator update design data against the reference plantwithin 18 months after the simulator is operational. But you must begin yourcycle of annual plant review of reference plant modifications when you submitthe certification.Q. 188. Section D, "Implementation," of Regulatory Guide 1.149, outlines aprocedure to be followed for a facility licensee that wishes to utilize a simu-lation facility at more than one nuclear power plant. Does this guidance applyto facility licensees that wish to use another facility licensee's plant-referenced simulator?A. Yes. But the facility must certify that the simulator meets the requirementsof ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985, as endorsed by Reg Guide 1.149, for his plant. In review-ing such'certifications, we would be particularly concerned about how you handledconfiguration control. Because you would have the potential for multiple de-sign changes at a facility, we would have to understand how you are going toensure that the simulation facility tracks the different plants.Q. 189. What procedure must be followed to determine whether a two-unit sitewill require only one plant-referenced simulator?A. There is considerable guidance on this in the "Implementation" section ofRegulatory Guide 1.149. It says that if a facility licensee wishes to use asimulation facility at more than one nuclear power plant, it must demonstrateto NRC in its certification, or in it's application; that the differences be-tween the plants are not so significant that they have an impact on the abilityof the simulation facility to meet the regulations in 10 CFR Part 55.45(a), andthe guidance of ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985.There is a list of indicators that can be used to demonstrate that there arenot such significant differences. One of the key areas that we-will look atis whether we issue multiple licenses for your operators of those facilities.ANSI/ANS 3.5, 1985Q. 190. ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985 requires that performance tests be conducted in theevent a design change results in a significant simulator configuration or per-formance variation. What is the NRC's definition of significant?NUREG-126252 A. Our operational definition is any change to the simulation facility, itsmodels or software that might cause the results of performance tests to falloutside the acceptable performance criteria set within the standard. Thestandard does not define "significant," and for an official definition, or anofficial clarification, you need to seek guidance from ANS itself. It's pos-sible that this definition will be clarified in the next revision to thestandard, but unless and until it is, we will use our operational definition.Q. 191. This question concerns the list of required malfunctions in performancetesting and ANS 3.5-1985. Are those not more "events" versus "malfunctions"?Do you understand that this causes confusion on the part of the simulator ven-dors in that if I was to go to a vendor and tell him that I want a reactor tripmalfunction, he's going to wonder what I'm talking about? Do I want power tothe CRD breakers? Do I want to lose all reactor coolant system flow? How do I-want to do this to create the abnormal event that ANSI 3.5 is asking me to per-form? Isn't that really referring to a list of abnormal transients?A. Yes.Q. 192. ANSI/ANS 3.5 Section 3.1.1(7) requires that the simulator be capable ofperforming startup and power operations with less than full rated reactor cool-ant flow. If the facility licensee is not allowed by Technical Specificationsto conduct such operations, is this capability still required?A. No. If a plant is constrained in any particular area' by its TechnicalSpecifications, then the simulation facility need not possess-that capabilityas it applies to routine operations.Q. 193. The Technical Specifications clearly bind the conditions under whichthe plant is allowed to operate. Am I correct that the simulator only needs tobe bound by the same parameters?A. No. For normal startup and shutdown practical-factor evolutions, inaccordance with your procedures, you-need not model those to be outside thebounds of the Technical Specifications. The question came up in the context of"N-minus-1 loop operation"; for instance, continued operation with a recircula-tion pump out of service or continued operation with one reactor coolant pumpout of service. You need not model the simulation facility for operation inthat mode if you are not permitted normally to start up in that mode. It waswith respect to the context for startup.Clearly, emergency procedures, for example, which go into function restorationguidelines and go beyond design basis accidents are not covered by Tech Specs,but we expect the simulation facility to be able to reasonably model thoseevents. The same holds true when you insert malfunctions. If you turn offpower to a panel, you're clearly outside the bounds of the Technical Specifica-tions. You would not be operating with that panel de-energized. So in general,if you are conducting malfunctions, you may be in that mode.Q. 194. ANSI/ANS 3.5 Section 3.1.1(9) states that measurement of reactivity co-efficients and control rod worth using permanently installed instruments beperformed. What is meant by "'permanently installed instrumentation?"NUREG-126253 A. The question of the meaning of the term "permanently installed instrumenta-tion" is in ANS 3.5, and official definition or clarification really has tocome from ANS and not from the Commission.Our operational definition essentially says that portable or temporary instru-mentation that is brought into the control room for specific modes of operation,such as startup, would not be required as part of the simulation facility.We intend that you use the normally installed instrumentation available in thecontrol room and not instrumentation associated with special tests.-So if it's part of your normal plant operating procedures and it's instrumenta-tion you rely on (and we expect that you have instrumentation that falls intothat category for calculating rod worth for doing startups) that's what weintend you to use. You need not simulate other instrumentation that is outsidethe scope of your normal procedures.Q. 195. ANSI 3.5 Section 3.1.1(10) states that the simulator be capable of per-forming operator-conducted surveillance testing. Are you only considering theremote shutdown panel?A. Any surveillance that cannot be performed from the control room need. notbe modeled. For example, if you're doing a diesel startup from the local panel forthe diesel and that's the way you conduct the surveillance, you need not modelanything that's done on a routine basis from outside the control room.Q. 196. Would it be wise to evaluate, for example, the plant's surveillance pro-cedures and identify which of those we think would be applicable to being doneon the simulation facility? In other words, generally the operator from thecontrol room would be doing that evolution. Naturally, all of those valvesexist on the control board and so on, and you can legitimately perform that.Would that be acceptable in meeting the intent of Item 10 in the standard?A. That would be one way of doing it. But if you look at the performance testing,particularly when you're getting out of component testing and into system test-ing, and you're evaluating your capability to actually model the system, a wayof doing that would be to see if you can model the surveillance procedures onthat.What you describe is acceptable. You may choose some subset of the surveillancesthat you can perform on those particular systems to show that those systems areoperating within the bounds expected by the plant.After all, that's where you have a source of data on the actual performance ofthe system: the records from the surveillance tests that you've conducted onthose systems, particularly where they have specifications for flow or pressureor some other characteristic which is modeled in the control room.Q. 197. Plant data, simulator update design data, and simulator design data: Iinterpret their relationship this way. Plant data represents the current plantconfiguration including installed and functional modifications. Simulatorupdate design data, call it Data A, is an accumulation of plant data for afixed time period, such as one year. At the end of the data accumulation, theNUREG-126254 vsimulator update design data is evaluated and appropriate data is incorporatedinto the simulator design data by the simulator modification process. We haveone year to match the simulator design data to the simulator update designdata, Data A. In the meantime, a-new accumulation of data into the next simu-lator update design data, Data B, is begun. Is this a correct interpretation?A. That interpretation is reasonable. The key thing is that you have up totwo years according to the standard to incorporate a plant modification intothe simulator. You have one year in which to identify the need for a simulatorupdate, based upon the required annual review of plant modifications; and thenyou have one more year during which you have to get it incorporated into thesimulator modification. So we have possibly two years from the time you recog-nize the need from a plant change to update the simulator until it must be inthe simulator.'Simulation Facility Certification (Including Performance Testing, NRC Form 474,NUREG-128Q. 198. When will the officialsimulation facility inspections start? Willthey start before certification takes place?A. No. There are two minimum criteria. They will not start before the SFEPguidance has been out for six months, and they will not start until we havereceived your certification on Form 474, or your application for approval.Q. 199. What level of simulator capability must be reported and tested if asimulator has considerable simulation capability, much greater thanANSI/ANS 3.5-1985 requirements?A. We are requiring that the capability of the simulation facility be'suchthat it meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55, and ANS 3.5, as endorsed byReg Guide 1.149. To the extent that any simulation facility has capabilitiesthat exceed those minimum requirements, you need not tell us what they are.You need not certify them to us, and we will not inspect against them.Q. 200. In the event we had capabilities beyond ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985 and.Part 55that we did not test and certify, would those capabilities be utilized-inexamining the operators?A. Possibly. For example, let's say that ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985 for a transientrequires a parameter to move in a certain direction so that you don't getspurious alarms, etc. The standard is rather loose with respect to modelingfor transients. And if you have something which is closer to an engineeringtool, such that you cannot only predict the direction of the parameters, but.also have a rather good tolerance on its value as compared to what you.wouldexpect from simply meeting the standard, that does not mean that we're notgoing to examine that particular transient or say that it's outside the scopeof our examinations. On the other hand, if you are able to go into the area of,say, severe accidents, which we don't currently cover in the requirements, wemay not be examining in that area. The issue is whether that's appropriate forthe control room crew, or the technical support center, the accident assessmentfunction, and that's the difference.'NUREG-126255 Q. 201. That's the real question. When our vintage simulator was purchased,the limitation on the vendor was to build it to plant design. Sometimes someof the NRC scenarios go beyond design basis, and I can't say whether the simu-lator's performance is correct or incorrect, I have no basis to certify it.A. We will still be examining on the design basis, because you must do thatin order to get into symptom-based procedures and function-restoration guide-lines. And we want to be able to see an operator's ability to use thoseemergency operating procedures, in particular.That already puts you beyond the Chapter 15 design-basis transients and evalua-tions. There is one requirement in ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985, which is endorsed in ourRegulatory Guide, and is also contained in our Simulation Facility EvalutionProcedure, for some means or mechanism within the simulation facility to notifythe simulator operator when the simulation facility has exceeded the capabil-ity of its modeling. And that's one of the things that we would be looking atin our inspections.Q. 202. In order to get into the emergency operating procedures on most plants,you have to have a variety of different types of failures that are compounded,which go beyond the design scope of the plant as single-failure-proof and wouldbe very difficult to run on a simulator. We have found that in using the emer-gency operating procedures (EOP), we can quickly get outside the bounds ofsimulation. How do you propose that we address that issue on EOPs?A. There are two ways: First, the standard indicates that when you go beyondthe bounds of modeling, it should indicate that in some way during the simula-tion. Second, we conduct examinations that go outside the bounds of your Chap-ter 15 accidents and transients. That's necessary in order to get you into thefunction-restoration guidelines.We intend to see and the regulations require that we understand that an opera-tor can effectively implement those procedures. The tolerances, however, forthose procedures are quite large. When you get into casualties, ANS 3.5essentially requires that the parameter go in the same direction it would goduring the actual transient in a plant; that you don't get spurious alarms andthat the alarms that are supposed to come in are the ones that you get. It'snot time dependent. It's really the ability to look at the parameter and de-cide, based upon that parameter, what procedure you're supposed to be using,and then implement that procedure. We are not looking for a high-fidelitysevere-accident simulator in order to be able to exercise the emergencyprocedures.Q. 203. This question relates to the definition of "site-specific plant-referenced simulator." What is meant by "it's been designed and uses plantprocedures?" With this explanation, could you give me a feeling for whether Ihave to delete some steps as inapplicable because of non-modeled systems?Does that need to be highlighted in my performance testing exceptions?A. What we mean by "use of procedures" is simply that the procedures that youroperators use in the control room should be capable of being run on the simula-tion facility without change. You must be able to use controlled copies of thecontrol room procedures, not copies modified in some fashion or by pen-and-inkNUREG-126256 changes. They actually need to be controlled copies.' You can indicate whichsteps cannot be performed, then you must certify to that. NRC must be able touse the facility emergency operating procedures during the conduct of operatingtests. A suitable alternative must be provided in the event of non-modeled sys-tems that are involved with the execution of such procedures in the control room.Depending on the extent and degree of such discrepancies, it is possible tocertify with exceptions as opposed to applying for NRC approval.Q. 204. In other words, I can't take exception to any step in the procedurebecause of non-modeled systems?A. Let's assume that it is a step in the procedure that'sroom, but it directs an activity outside the control room.operator tells the auxiliary operator to do something, andthat capability in the simulation facility. That would beused in the controlSay the reactoryou have not modelednot applicable.If it is a step normally conducted from the control room, it is part of theoperating procedures for the control room, and it falls into one of the cate-gories-appropriate for the operating test, then you need to model and describeit as a part of your certification of the simulation facility.If that step need not be used as a part of the operating test, if it's for anancillary system outside of what we would test on -- you may have something as-sociated with fire suppression or some other system, for example, that's not_explicitly covered in the items for the operating test -- then that need not beincluded.So you have to look at the-scope of the operating test in view of the requiredcapabilities of the simulation facility as described in the ANSI standard. -Q. 205. Let's assume that in the absence of a modeled system or a modeledcabinet within the control room area, I believe it would be permissible to usethe plant to train on that particular component. In essence, I have an excep-tion on my performance test plan, which would normally require the use of thatcabinet. But through on-the-job training in the actual control'room, I cangive the equivalent of-that training that I would have performed on the simula-tor. Have I gone beyond the plant-referenced simulator category and moved intothe-other category here? If so, how do I address that?.-A. Not necessarily. You need to lQok at whether that system is, for in-stance, a safety system. If it's-not a safety system and it's not otherwisecalled out in the categories under the operating test, then you need not modelthat system as a part of the control room. The safe-shutdown panels in somefacilities aren't modeled. They are outside the control room. We do not re--quire that you model that in the simulator.There are radiation monitor panels in the-control room and things like thatthat you may not have modeled in your simulation. We understand that. Thatshould not preclude you from using certification with exception.You need not necessarily go through the application process. It's when thereis some portion of the operating test which requires controls in the controlroom that are not replicated on the simulation facility that would require youto submit an application for NRC approval.NUREG-126257 Q. 206. Will the operator/examiner feedback form that was discussed be used todetermine the status of current simulators?A. The guidance to the Examiners is that the form will be applicable only tosimulation facilities that have been certified, or have applied for approval.However, even today, with the present vintage of simulators, you still areexperiencing feedback reports, although informal, in the exam review process.And that will continue. If the Examiners have a problem in conducting theoperating test at your simulator, you can expect some feedback in that regard,even though it won't be the formal process that will occur for certification orapproval.Q. 207. So, is it true that if I wait for 46 months to certify, that is anadvantage to me?A. No. It's not an advantage because you will to have provide substantialadditional information for every application that you submit and we are goingreview that information and make determinations on individual applications andcandidates.Q. 208. But, yet, you won't inspect us?A. We won't inspect your simulator, but we're certainly going to be keepclose tabs on your applicants. And every time you receive an NRC operatingtest using your simulator, you can expect feedback through the exam report onthe performance of your simulator.Q. 209. This refers to the accelerated update of the simulation facility thatmay be required as a result of performance testing. What systems, events, orprocedures are we trying to exercise during the simulator exam?A. The intent was to identify any potential system, operation or scenario thatwe could not conduct on the simulator exam because of the simulation facilityand which we could not readily implement another way during the examination,so that the exam could potentially be compromised or considered invalid. Wewould need to see that that system, or procedure or event had been correctedbefore we could. develop an appropriate exam using it. For example, one simula-tor was unable to adequately represent flow coast down on a loss of coolant.The response was very unusual as compared to what was expected, and on how theprocedures were to be used, because there was no coast down. It would not havebeen appropriate to conduct an examination which involved a loss of flow eventin that case. We would not want that situation to exist for the next twoyears, because we may want to conduct a loss of flow scenario as a part of anexam within that time. So, we would require that that be corrected on a sched-ule that is faster than the normal two-year correction schedule provided in thestandard.Q. 210. I think clearly, that's the intent. But I see opening some areas ofdisagreement in the future. None of us know what the next round of the "topicof the day" is going to be. And we may find that our present machines were notdesigned to handle whatever that issue is. And, so, when you say any event,that can be troublesome.NUREG-126258 A. We suggest that you look atiNUREG-1258 that describes the Simulation Facil-ity Evaluation Procedure (SFEP) and the pilot tests. That should allay some ofthe apprehension.Also remember'that-this system, operation or event is something that you havealready certified that your'machine is capable of doing. We're referring tosomething we discovered during the course of our inspection that contradictssomething you've told us on'your certification.Q. 211. This question addresses performance tests to be performed on the simu-lator in compliance with 10 CFR 55. What are those set of performance tests,the specific scenarios and malfunctions? Could you clarify that?A. We're talking about Appendices A and B of ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985, and the listof 25 malfunctions that are contained in Section 3.1.2 of the Standard. Thereis a defined list of malfunctions that the simulation facility needs toperform.Q. 212. Is it 'just that list that's in 3.5, only?A. Yes.Q. 213. Or is it that list,-plus the diesel generator that's covered in Regula-tory Guide 1.149?A. There was a specific list of malfunctions in an earlier draft of'Regula-tory Guide 1.149,"but it is gone' from the final version. The'equivalent para-graph that's in the final version endorses the paragraph in the Standard thatlists the 25 malfunctions. Recognize, however, that some of those malfunctionsare quite broad. -We talked about the loss of power. That could mean loss ofpower to a panel, to a system, to a component, or loss of all power. Smallbreak LOCAs can be initiated from a reactor coolant pump seal, from a steamgenerator, a tube rupture, a lot of different ways. What we are interested inis a representative-sample of those things. You need not do all possiblepermutations and combinations.'But you are going to have to look at what you are certifying to, that's thereason that you are submitting test abstracts, and you describe what your test-ing program is. 'Q. 214. So we will determine which specific scenarios we will run, as long aswe cover those areas?A. That is correct.'And you'describe that in your abstract, with your certi-fication, and you 'describe-the performance tests that you will conduct in thefuture to maintain the simulation facility.Q. 215. Would the Commission find a formal simulator facility review board/committee (consisting of training management, operations management and seniorreactor operators) a-suitable forum for making judgments regarding the simula-tor scope requirements versus training value? For example, ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985states that all accidents analyzed in the facility's FSAR must be included inplant malfunctions in the simulator's scope. It then later states that this isrequired only when the simulator is determined appropriate for training.NUREG-126259 However, in a few cases the accidents provide little, if any, training value toan operator. Can a board, such as that proposed, be considered a legitimateforum for making these decisions?A. We are concerned with the applicability of your simulation facility forthe conduct of operating tests, and not as it applies to your training pro-grams. Generally speaking, when you look at the ANS 3.5 document, you cansafely substitute the term "operating tests" wherever the term "training"appears.Although we recognize that your simulation facility's scope, when applied aspart of your training program,, may exceed that which, is necessary for itsapplicability to use in operating tests, it doesn't matter to us what processyou use internally to identify those differences.We have tried to indicate clearly the minimum requirements for use of your simu-lation facility to conduct operating tests, and it must meet those minimums.These include the evolutions and malfunctions identified in Section 3.1.2, inthe performance test appendix, and in the operability test appendix of thestandard, using the required operating test requirements in Section 55.45(a) asthe criterion.However you meet those requirements is your decision to make; and as to whetheryou need to certify or provide additional performance testing data for anythingadditional, that's also your decision to make.You will be submitting performance test abstracts with the Form 474 that de-scribe the testing that you're going to perform.When you look at the list of malfunctions and you see a malfunction that says"loss of power," that's very broad. Which ones do you choose in developing thetest abstract for various losses of power?You should look at the testing that you propose and, if possible, combine someof those malfunctions so that you have a smaller number of performance teststhan would otherwise be the case and describe how those tests in your abstractsmeet the intent of the standard.In doing that, we would use those tests in making a judgment as to what thecapabilities are. That does not mean that we would limit our examinations,however, to those particular tests or scenarios.Obviously, if you demonstrate that the simulation facility works well for anevent at high power and for some tests at low power, we may be able to mixthose just as we do now. You have a substantial amount of control in decidingwhat testing you want to propose for the performance tests and that list ofmalfunctions is quite general.In the case of using the panel, that could be an appropriate vehicle for decid-ing what tests are going to be proposed as performance tests. They could be asubset of all the malfunctions the simulator is capable of performing. You mayliterally have hundreds of malfunctions which you can implement.NUREG-126260 We don't want to see a performance test for each malfunction. We do want tobe sure that all of the malfunctions that are listed in the standard can beperformed.Q. 216. Section 55.45(b)(5)(vi) says a certification report need only include adescription of performance testing completed, performance testing planned, andthe schedule for conducting 25 percent'of performance tests per year for thenext four years. Is this sufficient,-or must the document conform to ANS 3.5-1985 Appendix A?"A. This question addresses two different issues. The first is the testingthat is required, and the second is the reporting. The reporting itself neednot be in the format of Appendix A, ANS 3.5, although that's not necessarily abad idea. But it must cover those items that are called out in the Regulationin Section 55.45(a), specifically a description of the performance tests con-ducted, and the schedule -for future performance tests, if that schedule differsfrom one that was previously submitted with the certification.The actual testing must include not only the Appendix A performance testing, ascalled out in the standard, but the specific list of malfunctions that areidentified in Section 3.1.2 of the standard, both at the rate of 25 percent peryear. Also, the operability testing that's shown in Appendix B of the standardis to be performed annually. So, testing and reporting are separate issues.Q. 217. When does the Commission project that their guidance for conductingsimulation facility audits will be made public?A. That guidance is available now in draft NUREG-1258, and we will acceptyour comments on that NUREG until-the 26th of May.Q. 218. Will simulator certification audits be performed by NRC headquartersstaff, regional NRC staff, or some combination?A" In all'probabilityi the simulation facility inspection program will com-bine headquarters and regional staff, starting largely as a headquarters func-tion and over time becoming more region-based as we move into the inspectionprocedures.Q. 219. NRC released a final draft of "Handbook for Software Quality'AssuranceTechniques Applicable to the Nuclear Industry," dated February 1986. Thishandbook addresses the applicability of 10 CFR 50 Appendix B requirementsassociated with computer uses in the nuclear industry.It specifies that training simulators require stringent software quality as-surance. This requirement seems to imply that the simulator's software shouldbe treated as though it were safety related, with the appropriate programmaticand procedural controls applied. What are the Commission's plans in this areaand what relationship, if any, will the draft handbook have to simulatorcertification? 'A. 'The draft handbook to which you refer imposes no requirements on theindustry. It is under consideration by the staff, but there is no intent forus to review your software development or quality control procedures as theyapply to Part 55 and to simulation facility certification.NUREG-1262 61 You, of course, have to manage your own simulator software program in order tomeet the regulations in Part 55 as required to certify that the simulationfacility is suitable for conducting operating tests. And we will review thesimulation facility's adequacy using the performance testing program, after yousubmit your Form 474.We will take a look at the handbook to determine its status, but we think it issafe to consider it not applicable to these regulations.The best way of determining whether the software is any good or not is to seewhether it performs in accordance with the plant's design characteristics. Wedon't need a very prescriptive software control program protocol that is sub-ject to NRC review and evaluation.We've described how we intend to inspect the simulation facilities and we haveput that into the Simulation Facility Evaluation Procedure. The evaluationswill be based upon running things like Licensee Event Report scenarios andseeing how the simulation facility compares with the plant.But if you start modifying the software in one area, you may affect otherareas. So you need to understand what impacts such changes will have to theoverall performance tests. If a modification causes a performance test to falloutside of its acceptance values -- that is, the 2 percent and the 10 percent-- you need to rerun that test to ensure that the simulation facility is stillperforming in accordance with the design specification. We're looking for amachine that will replicate what we expect to happen in the plant. We're notlooking for developing a software control system which is appropriate to areactor protection system where you cannot test by operation how effectivelythe performance of the reactor protection system works. Title 10 CFR 50 Ap-pendix B requirements would appear to be appropriate in such safety-relatedapplications. That's the difference.Q. 220. This question concerns a simulation facility consisting of other than aplant-referenced simulator, and the performance testing related to such a fa-cility. What performance tests are required and what standard is used toevaluate whether the tests are satisfactory or not?A. We intend to follow the guidelines in the ANSI standard as applicable tothe simulation facility which you have proposed.Let's say that you want to use another plant's simulation facility for reactorstartup and that you can effectively model the controls and indications thatwould be used for reactor startup. We would expect you to follow the ANSIstandard as it related to startup modeling., You may not be able to model itfor controls and indications because you don't have that capability on thesimulation facility. You would not have to follow ANS 3.5 guidelines in thatinstance because they are not applicable.Q. 221. If the standard for performance tests is ANSI/ANS 3.5, as modified byRegulatory Guide 1.149, will it be possible to deviate from the standard incertain areas or must it be adhered to in its entirety?NUREG-126262 A. We recognize that there will be a number of outstanding discrepancy re-ports on the simulation facility against its reference plant. We expect that,for certified simulation facilities, as well as for those that achieve approvalafter application, exceptions will have to be taken from the requirements ofANS 3.5. There is a block on Form 474 for certified simulation facilities toaddress the exceptions that you take at any given time'. The same would applyto noncertified simulation facilities where you would address those exceptionsin your application.Q. 222. Does a simulation-facility certification form, NRC 474, have to be sub-mitted prior to each operating examination?A. No. Assuming that you maintain the acceptability of the simulation facil-ity, it is a one-time certification.Q. 223. Will the guidance document be limited to auditing the provisions ofANSI/ANS 3.5-1985?A. No. It will be limited to auditing certification against the requirementsof Section 55.45(a) of the regulation, which delineates the 13 components ofthe operating test, and ANS 3.5-1985, as endorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.149.Q. 224. Will the performance testing documentation maintained for NRC review belimited to those items addressed in ANSI 3.5?A. No. The performance testing and its documentation will use Section 55.45(a)of the regulation-as its criterion, and must employ the malfunction testing ofSection 3.1.2 of ANS 3.5, as well as the standard's two appendices, and theendorsement by Regulatory Guide 1.149.To amplify, the operability test identified as Appendix B in the standard isdone annually. We have not taken exception to that. Performance testing,which appears in Appendix A, plus the repeat of the malfunction testing, whichis described in Section 3 of the standard (that set of testing at approximatelya rate of 25 percent per year over four years), will constitute the additionalannual testing to be done.So you have an annual operability test, and then 25 percent of the performancetests that are described in the first appendix, plus 25 percent of the mal-functions'that are listed. To the extent the operability test itself dupli-cates a portion of the performance test', that's sufficient. You don't need todo it twice, 'but that's the scope of the testing we are expecting to be done onan annual basis, and the term annual is used in its common meaning. We areinterested in you doing the performance tests regularly over a period of fouryears, and not putting them off for the last year.Of course, before you submit your certification or your application for ap-proval, you should have completed 100 percent of the operating tests and theperformance tests. After that, the 25 percent per year cycle will begin.Q. 225. It was indicated that when we submit the Form 474, we should have100 percent of the performance tests completed. Can we count performance tests,specifically malfunction tests, that were performed as part of an acceptableNUREG-126263 test procedure, say, three years ago, towards having performed that part of theperformance test one time, or do we have to redo it before we submit the form?A. There is not necessarily any need to redo those performance tests. Theconcern, if any, is the difference in'time'from when they were done, and anychanges to the plant configuration that would be required by the ANSI standardto bring the simulation facility up to date. If there have been no changesthat would require you to repeat some performance tests to make them in com--pliance with the standard, then those tests should be acceptable.Q. 226. So if we conducted an acceptable test program, and since then have hada program in place to test all the modifications to the software, includingmalfunctions, if appropriate, then we've got a basis for starting, anyway?A. Yes. We intentionally did not specify a time prior to certification bywhich you had to have them all completed.But the situation you have is that once you do certify, then you start perform-ing those same performance tests over again on a 25-percent-per-year basis overthe 4 years to ensure that configuration changes are, indeed, incorporated inthe simulation facility. But the rule itself is silent on how long beforecertification these tests may have been performed.There were some changes in the standard between the 1981 version and the1985 version. You have to show that you have met the 1985 version, and thatany design changes or software changes that you have made since then have notaffected the validity of those earlier tests. It may be easier to repeat themthan to repeat the entire process, but that's up to you.Q. 227. Is there any intent to include remote shutdown panels in any of thesimulation facility requirements?A. No. However, if these panels are provided as part of the simulation facil-ity, they may be used in the NRC operating test.Q. 228. What does the Commission consider an adequate schedule to correct per-formance test failures identified in the four-year anniversary certification?A. Although the rule requires a report on every four-year anniversary ofcertification, or four-year anniversary of application, we intend to have amuch closer working relationship with you so that we will know on an ongoingbasis about any such performance test failures, and there are several mecha-nisms to do that. One is the 90-day letter prior to examinations, in whichuncorrected performance test failures would be identified. Another would besimulation facility fidelity reports from our examiners, and the third would bethe results of our periodic audit and inspections of simulation facilities.The schedule to correct performance test failures is really based upon theseriousness and the magnitude of the failures that are discovered. It mayrange from purely an NRC recommendation that the failures be corrected, to arecommendation that a failure be corrected within the normal update cycle re-quired by ANS 3.5. The next level would require a correction on an acceleratedschedule. The most serious failures require that the simulation facilityessentially shut down until the failures are corrected.NUREG-126264

.Q. 229. What detail of description is the Commission anticipating in the re-port? Should the report be revised if a schedule for conducting a performancetest changes year-to-year during the four-year period?A. If your schedule for performance testing changes between the time yousubmit a certification and any subsequent four-year report, you should adviseus of that change on the Form 474.There are three documents for certified simulation facilities that address thelevel of-detail.' The rule, specifically the operating test in 55.45(a), lists13 items that make up'the content of the exam; ANS 3.5,-which sets out therequirements for the simulation facility's capabilities, as well as the per-formance testing requirements; and Form 474, which indicates that we wantperformance test abstracts and performance test schedules."We don't want reams of material on the details of all your performance testsand all the results. If we need additional information in the course ofconducting an off-site or an on-site simulation facility evaluation we willrequest it from you; we are really'looking for summaries and abstracts sub-mitted with that certification form.Q. 230. Will an NRC certification team be sent'to the facility to conduct asimulator performance audit using'the new simulator certification criteria?A. Essentially yes. The NRC staff will conduct the review and the inspection.It will be a two-phase process, an offsite review, followed by an onsite in-spection, if necessary. Only'as a'result of onsite inspection might certifica-tion be removed, as a last resort. For further clarification, a certificationis not removed as a result of an inspection. It's removed as a result of fail-ing performance tests which are required by the regulation. During the inspec-tion we conduct performance tests where we audit the ability of the simulationfacility to perform as described in the performance tests that you submitted. .So if the machine does not work during'an inspection, the criterion is stillthe failure-of a substantial number of 'performance tests, such that you cannotperform a meaningful operating test as described in the regulation.The conclusion is based upon the requirements for the operating test, not juston failing some fraction of the performance tests. You have to fail perform-ance' tests, but it's got to be a substantial enough number of performancetests that it impacts on the simulation facility's ability to conduct an NRCoperating'examination. So one performance'test failure does.not necessarilymean that the simulation facility would be decertified. It has to'be'a grossenough set of failures that we can't conduct a test.Q. 231. We presently have two years before a plant modification must be incorpor-ated into our simulator. Can we certify the simulator to the NRC withouthaving incorporated all plant modifications?.'A. We always anticipate'that even when you certify a simulationthere will be exceptions if you haven't been able to bring it upplant modifications. The ANSI standard allows a two-year periodyou identified the need for making modifications until those areporated into the simulation facility. So the answer is yes, youprior to the date you've incorporated the modifications.facility,to date withfrom the datefully incor-can certifyNUREG-1262-65',

Q. 232. Where specifically would that be on Form 474?A. There is a block near the top of the form that says "I hereby certifythat the simulation facility meets 10 CFR 55 and ANSI 3.5."It then says: "If there are any exceptions to the certification of item twoabove [that is, the ANSI standard], check here and describe on additional pagesif necessary."Q. 233. In earlier discussions mention was made about using controlled copiesof procedures for simulators. What do you mean by the word control?A. Controlled copies means those procedures identical to the ones that you usein the control room of the plant. The copies should be up to date, includingreferences and revisions.*Q. 234. When an examiner conducts an exam on. the simulator, are we going to beable to take a look at some of the fidelity questions that they have on a simu-lator prior to them leaving or prior to their exit interview?A. Yes. The examiner will provide any comments that he or she has about thesimulator's fidelity on a "Simulation Facility Fidelity Report," which has beenadded to Examiner Standard ES-104. Those thoughts will be shared with thefacility licensee along with the rest of the examiner's comments, before he orshe leaves the site.Q. 235. Are licensees required to submit exemption requests per the ANSI Stand-ard or the Regulatory Guide, and they are to be issued per the requirements of55.45?A. If any one of the requirements of the operating tests in Section 55.45(a)cannot be met with the simulation facility, you would require an exemption fromthe Regulation. A failure to meet all of the requirements of the ANSI standarddoes not require an exemption. It simply requires an identification of what itis that you cannot meet. And it must include a conclusion on your part thatthat difference would not preclude the conduct of an operating test as it'sdescribed in the Regulation.That's why the certification on Form 474 is a certification to the Regulationwith an identification that you follow the ANSI standard with some exceptions.We recognize that there will be exceptions. There are exceptions on newlicenses on the day they're issued and we issue a number of license conditions.We don't expect that the number of discrepancy reports on a simulation facilityis ever going to get to zero. It's anticipated that there will always be somefeedback, some necessary correction. The standard itself provides a schedulefor incorporating those corrections and revisions.Q. 236. I'm unclear as to how much we have to put into our simulator with re-gard to back panels.The simulator we have is what's called a main horseshoe. We have 50 to 60 backpanels in the simulator which are used during surveillance testing, andNUREG-126266 I2recently there have been a lot of bypass switches that we use during our emer-gency plan training. Must we have all those back panels in our simulator orcan we substitute the plant for that part of the training? It's a very bigmain control room, and we put all our back panels in there instead of outsidethe main control room.A. Our intent is not to have you model the entire plant, but if the evolu-tions you are citing are your operating and emergency procedures for the fa-cility, and it's an evolution which is conducted from within the control roomby the regulation, we would expect that to be modeled or you would have to showus how that could be done without modelling and identify that as an exception.But for facilities that have a large number of back panels or other equipmentavailable in the control room, it's not the intent that you mock up all thosepanels. Generally, they are merged in the main control boards. For example,those that control the reactor, safety systems, electrical line-up, and balanceof plant are the typical ones that we're looking for.Q. 237. Would it be safe to assume that you have in mind the area that theoperating shift typically does not leave during normal operation of thefacility?A. It's those portions of the facility where the individual is defined asbeing "at the controls," which is described in Regulatory Guide 1.114. Somefacilities mark it off with a red line on the floor or with a fence or whatever.It's that area where the individual is at the controls as defined in the Regu-latory Guide that we're interested in simulating.NUREG-126267 LICENSES

--- -Special Senior Operator Licenses (Including Instructor Certification)Q. 238. What is the impact of the new rule on instructor qualifications? Arethe requirements of NUREG-0737 superseded?A. The new rule supersedes the requirements for instructor qualifications inNUREG-0737. The responsiblity for ensuring that instructors are qualified nowrests with the accreditation process. INPO has established the qualificationsfor technical instructors, which would be reviewed within accreditation. NRC'srole is to monitor the accreditation program to ensure that it maintains thestandards that have been endorsed by the Commission.Q. 239. Instructors who have been certified or who have held a license pre-viously may instruct students in courses needed to prepare applicants for NRClicensing examinations. Are these instructors required to participate in arequalification program?A. If you have an accredited program or systems approach to training (SAT)program, then that program will define the continuing qualification and re-training requirements for instructors. If you do not have an accredited pro-gram, then the instructors will have to meet the commitments of the approvedprogram as defined under Part 55 and commitments contained in the FSAR. NRCwill no longer issue instructor certifications. If a licensee is using vendor-certified instructors in a requalification program that has not been completelyconverted to an SAT program (performance-based), it is conceivable that a 50.59change could be made to support such an approach in the interim until such timeas the requalification program is converted to an SAT-based program.Q. 240. As I understand it, only people that hold a license for a facility mayinstruct license-type material to a hot license class. Would consultants whowere previously licensed and certified by General Electric be able to teachsuch material?A. If your program is accredited, then you determine subject matter expertiseand instructor skills in accordance with the accredited program. If your pro-gram is not yet accredited and you were previously under the commitment in theDenton letter to assure subject matter expertise for instructors -- which wasthat those instructing integrated plant operations have a level of knowledgecomparable to that of a senior reactor operator -- then the process we'veallowed in the interim permits you to certify your instructors based upon theirsuccessful completion of your senior operator training program.We have also allowed that those examined and certified by NRC in the past cancontinue, but they should receive additional training on plant or procedurechanges, that portion of the requalification program which is applicable to whatthey're teaching.Now, the practical aspect is that those people who are instructing have tolearn that material to a depth greater than that which they instruct, and yourprogram also has mechanisms for evaluating instructor performance.NUREG-126268 We are trying to move out of the area of specifying training program content orqualifications for instructors. So depending upon your commitment in the pre-sently approved program, you may need to review that in accordance with 50.59.NRC will not need to certify it; you may do that under your own program.Q. 241. How would that apply to vendors such as Westinghouse? We cannot getaccredited by INPO. Therefore, if we hold a staff of instructors, are theythen going to have to go to the utility and the utility is going to have toeither license or certify them?A. For contractors that are providing instruction for facilities, it is theresponsibility of the facility to ensure that the contractors have the appro-priate subject matter expertise and instructor skills to meet the requirementsof their accredited program. The staff will not be certifying or approvinginstructors who are contractors, nor will'we be certifying or approving instruc-tors who are facility employees.Q. 242. Did I understand correctly that you said that if you're not accredited,that you would have to license instructors?A. Some facilities in their existing-training programs have committed in theFSAR to have either licensed senior reactor operators or individuals who werecertified instructors. The-old instructor certification, which was comparableto a license (the eligibilty requirements'were relaxed), required that theinstructor go through the same examination, although he was not authorized tomanipulate the controls. We no longer issue such certificates, which wouldimply that you would be obligated to have licensed operators conduct your program.We also indicated that you could perform a 50.59 type of review that-would meetthe same intent.' Having your instructors complete and be examined by the stan-dards of a program comparable to your own senior reactor operator program, suchas a vendor certification program, would be sufficient in the interim. When weget to the point where everyone has been accredited, that issue is superseded.The accreditation process covers instructor qualification and training.Q. 243. I do not have my programs accredited yet. I hope we will have themdone by the end of the year. But I have people who are in a program right now,the same one we've been using all along, and they are being examined by us nextweek. And the Region is not going to come in and give them an NRC exam. Myintention is to certify them as I have done in the past and put them right intoa classroom. They will' also be in a requalification program. Do I understandthat to be a correct procedure?A. Yes. If you are getting ready for accreditation, you probably have com-pleted the self-evaluation report, and are getting ready for a team visit. Aspreparation for that, you look at how you train and certify instructors. Wewant that to be a part of the accreditation process, and not a part of the NRCreview.Q. 244. Can trainees participating in a systems training program for instruc-tor certification manipulate controls on the facility under the appropriatesupervision of licensed personnel?NUREG-1262 69 A. If that training program can lead to a license if carried to completiontrainers may manipulate controls under appropriate supervision if it occurs inthe proper sequence within the training program. The trainee may also manipu-late controls (under proper supervision) without being involved in a coursethat leads to a license if the systems that are being manipulated do not affectpower or reactivity (e.g., feedwater). However if the systems that the traineewill teach, and therefore the controls he would manuipulate, do affect power orractivity, then he must be enrolled in a course that leads to a license.Q. 245. As I understand it, in the accredited utilities, instructors will beconsidered to be certified to teach licensed operators after they complete theaccredited training program. In the case of a utility that doesn't have theiroperations programs accredited yet, could you outline what the requirementswill be?A. The requirements are basically those which were in existence before theeffective date of the Rule, and that is to either have an individual who hascompleted a training program comparable to that of an SRO, and been examinedon it (we used to call that instructor certification), or be a licensed senioroperator, who is currently enrolled in a requalification training program.Because of the fact that we no longer are going to be giving instructor certi-fications, you then have only the option of using a licensed operator to teachthose courses. We are not going to give any further instructor's certifications,that's not permitted under the Rule.For NTOLs and facilities that are in the accreditation process, the Commission'sPolicy Statement in Training and Qualification of Power Plant Personnel ofMarch 20, 1985 allowed facilities to make the transition from FSAR commitmentsto accredited programs. Therefore NRC instructor certifications which, as apolicy, were discontinued in Mid 1985, relied on facility certification ofinstructors. We believe this policy will continue and eventually be reflectedin Revisions to Section 13.2 of NUREG-0800, the Standard Review Plan.Q. 246. So, training instructors must be licensed operators?A. Yes, until such time as you get accredited, or have some other way of gett-ing subject matter expertise through your accredited program, including in-structor training. We are not going to specify that for an accredited program.But you may have a program on record today, in which you have committed to therequirements to the Denton letter, which said you were going to do certainthings to ensure subject matter expertise in instructors. And that was toeither use a licensed senior reactor operator or an individual who has beenexamined by the NRC to the same level as a senior operator.We are not going to examine without issuing a license.Q. 247. Will people who are currently certified by virtue of the fact thatthey have previously passed a senior reactor operator examination somewhere,and thus demonstrated their competency, be considered as certified to teach?A. Yes. But when they come to us after the effective date of the Rule request-ing to have their certification renewed, that's not going to happen, becausethere is no longer such certification.NUREG-126270 Q. 248. So, then, is someone who has passed an SRO exam given by the NRC atsome point in the past, considered certified or, not?.,-A. For the purpose of meeting your training program commitment of having-anindividual who has a knowledge level, comparable to that of a senior reactoroperator, the answer is yes, provided'the individual is maintaining currency inthe requalification program, with respect to any changes which would affect hisknowledge base. That is consistent with what INPO is looking at in the instruc-tofrtraining and as identified in Technical Instructor Training and.QualificationGuideline, INPO 82-026 at 7.1.Q. 249. Can you tell us how you expect to treat people under the-new rule whoare currently SRO instructor certified? What kind of credit are they going toget because they 'are SRO instructor certified, if any? iA. The answer'is none. 'Obviously they have completed the same training programand taken the same'exam-as an SRO, but because of eligibility requirements ortime on shift or some other requirement they did not;meet the SRO requirements.In the past, there'have been individuals who successfully converted an instruc-tor's certification to an RO license.Additionally, there is the provision for waiver of certain portions of the NRCexamination, based on operators having: (1) extensive actual operating experi-ence at a comparable facility within two years, (2) discharged his or herresponsibilities competently and safely and is capable of continuing to do so,and (3) learned the'operating procedures and is qualified to competentlyoperate the'facility designated in the' application.If you want these individuals-to become licensed, you will-need to submit acomplete application, and if applicable, request a waiver under the Regulation.Thls application would then be reviewed by the Region as"to what portion, ifany, of the examination would be waivered."Actively Performing the'Functions of an Operator or Senior Operator",Q. 250. What guidance will the Commissfon provide to the facility licensees andthe staff that Section IIF(2) is Commission policy?A. Section IIF(2) is part of the Statement of Considerations that summarizespublic comments and-describes the 'staff's final actions in response to them.This Section.discusses'the definition of "actively performing the functions ofan operator or senior operator," which is part of the regulation, contained inSections 55.53(e) and 55.53(f).' -*Q. 251. The regulation for active participation states that "an individual hasa position on the shift crew that requires the individual to be licensed as de-fined in the facility's Technical Specifications, and that the individual ca-rries out and is responsible for the duties covered in that position." Howdoes this rule accommodate plants with RO and SRO licenses on shift that exceedthe Technical' Specification minimum staffing requirements?NUREG-126271- A. The rule does-not preclude having additional people on shift beyond theminimum staffing requirements. That is a utility decision. However, in orderto take credit for the proficiency of such personnel standing watch above theTechnical Specification' minimums, as a condition for maintaining a license under10 CFR 55.53(e), the facility licensee must maintain administrative control overthese designated watchstanders, and must be satisfied that these individuals aremaintaining their proficiency by manipulating the controls of the facility inthe case of an operator, or by manipulating the controls and directing the li-;censed activities of licensed operators, in the case of a senior operator.So that if you operate a single unit with three reactor operators on shift, twoof those individuals are in positions required by the Technical Specifications.One is usually the reactor operator and the other is the balance of plant opera-tor. The third person would need to rotate into one of those two positions overthe course of a quarter to obtain the requisite number of shifts to maintain hislicense active, so he would need to sign the logs, on occasion, as the reactoroperator or the balance of'plant operator. So it's clear that you.must be-inthe position on shift-required by the Technical Specifications, and additionalpersonnel on' shift to perform other duties do 'not meet the requirement fordirecting the activities of licensed operators or for manipulating the controls.There are alternatives built into the regulation to provide ample flexibility inobtaining proficiency for licensed duties, e.g., 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of parallel watchstanding.Q. 252. Our Technical Specifications do not address the individual's responsi-bilities for each position in order to satisfy the active participation re-quirement--it says you have to have an RO and twoSROs, one SRO as a shiftsupervisor and one that's another RO. Can you rotate that SRO position from ashift foreman position to another senior reactor operator position? It doesn'tsay who is required to fill those positions, so the complication is that if wehave a senior control operator who has an SRO license and he's clearly direct-ing the operator's activities, can we give him the responsibility for the dayand say the shift foreman no longer has the responsibility, because both ofthem hold'an SRO license?'A. For the case that you've described, the individual who is on shift directingthe activities is the one who's in the position required by the Technical Speci-fications. Whether he is the shift foreman for that shift because that's thetitle that you use to describe other responsibilities he may have, it is thesenior operator in the control room who directs how the other two operatorsmanipulate the controls and who is there fulfilling the requirements of.theTechnical Specifications to be supervising the activities of the licensedoperators. That'.s the position that qualifies for the eight hours on thatshift, independent of title. Your administrative procedures should be clear asto who has authority to direct licensed operators so that if the shift foremanis relieved-there is another senior-operator in the control room carrying out.those duties. The Technical Specifications don't refer to shift foreman; theysay senior operator directing the activities of other licensed operators.There is a related question that concerns the extra person on shift who may notbe in the licensed role. It is possible for that individual to complete 40hours of parallel watch standing; that is, he's not in the position required byNUREG-126272 the Technical Specifications, as long as he is being supervised and his activi-ties are being closely monitored by the person responsible. He could accrue40 hours of parallel watch standing for that quarter and not'be actually in aposition required by the Technical Specifications to meet the seven shifts ateight hours each, or thelfive shifts of twelve hours each.It would require in that case, that the authorizing representative of the facil-ity certify that he has completed that duty. From a practical standpoint, it'seasier to rotate the people through the watch to maintain their proficiency.The active license status is intended as a way of maintaining the proficiencyof the people who are performing the functions. If you're dual licensed, theactive status requirement can be met by standing watch on only one plant, oron some combination of the plants.Conditions of Licenses (Subpart F, Section 55.53)-Q. 253. With regards to fuel handlers, in the case where you may refuel once ayear, it's probable that the requirement won't be maintained. Subparagraph55.53(f)(2) suggests that one shift of supervised duty is required before thefuel handling foreman with the license can assume his full duties. Is theintent that that supervision be performed by another fully qualified SRO whomay not be a fuel handling specialist?A. That is correct. -An actiVe SRO license includes the capability and re-sponsibilities associated with monitoring fuel-handling activities.Q. 254. The Operations Managerand Operations Supervisor are required by Tech-nical Specifications to be licensed as Senior Reactor Operators. These in-dividuals do not have a position on the shift crew.: They are involved in theday-to-day direction of Licensed Operator activities. Are these positionsconsidered as actively performing Licensed Duties?,A. No, unless they stand the seven 8-hour shifts per quarter, or five 12-hourshifts per quarter. That does not mean that the Ops Manager and the OpsSupervisor cannot keep a license. The requirements to maintain a license arethat they continue in requalification.If the Operations Manager must hold a license, then he must participate inrequal, but he need not stand watch on shift in a position where he is directingthe activities of the Reactor Operators. A license, whether it's active or not,may meet some Technical Specification requirement.,Q. 255. What if you~have an.SRO stand a shift assignment as an RO? Does theSRO get credit for standing watch in that position for renewal purposes?A. The SRO is not performing Senior Reactor Operator license duties. Unlesshe is also standing SRO's duties during that quarter, then his SRO licensewould not be active. Where an SRO is standing an RO watch, his license wouldcontinue to be active insofar as-it deals with his operating or manipulatingthe controls as an RO.In order for him to direct others, he would have to'stand a 40-hour parallelshift in order to be proficient and go back into an SRO's duties. He could,NUREG-126273 however, continue to maintain an SRO license if he's current in requal. If hewants to assume an SRO's capacity, he must go back to a 40-hour shift underinstruction as an SRO.Q. 256. When the operations-manager is licensed, should technical advisors orlicensed instructors have to become members of a shift crew to maintain anactive license?A. Yes, to maintain an active license, they do. To maintain an inactivelicense, they don't.Q. 257. Do personnel seeking to maintain an active license have to replace amember of a shift crew to meet the watch requirements of 10 CFR 55.53?A. Yes, they do, with the understanding that there may be additional people onshift beyond the minimum technical specification requirements.Q. 258. Although there is only one Technical Specification SRO position onshift (Shift Supervisor), our Technical Specification reflects the 10 CFR 50.54requirement of a second SRO on shift. Would standing a watch as a designatedsecond SRO meet the definition of actively performing the function of a SeniorOperator?A. If he is filling an SRO position under the Tech Specs then he would bemaintaining his active SRO license. A number of people have asked, can we havetwo or three people come in to get their on-shift time? Our position is thatthose meeting the minimum staffing Technical Specification requirements forwhatever operational mode get credit, although there can be other people onshift who are also eligible for credit.For clarification, this question seems to imply that at this facility the TechSpecs do not conform to the Regulation for a single-unit site for having twoSenior Operators on shift during operational modes. That's understandablebecause the Rule itself supersedes the Technical Specification requirement, andis a higher order requirement. That is, you must conform to the Rule even ifyour Tech Specs permit something less. We would suggest that the next timeyou have an administrative change to that section of the Technical Specifications,amend it to conform to the Rule.Q. 259. If the Operations Manager does not hold an active license, what dutiesmay he perform or not perform in that status? For instance, we all have Tech-nical Specifications that require licensed Senior Reactor Operators to approvechanges to procedures. Would an inactive license allow him to do those admin-istrative functions?A. Yes. He can do everything but direct a Reactor Operator in manipulation ofcontrols, or himself manipulate the controls.Q. 260. All stations have engineering expertise on shift in the form of a shiftengineer, who is the STA. STAs hold a current SRO license. They directactivities and integrate schedules. Are they not actively performing the func-tions of an SRO license by those duties, or are they going to have to come backand perform as a shift supervisor, on shift?NUREG-126274 A. If they are one of the two individuals required by Technical Specifica-tions to'staff the shift, then what you just described is acceptable. If oneis there as an engineer on shift who happens also to hold an SRO license, andis only fulfilling the-role of an STA, then he is not responsible for directingthe activities of licensed operators. There are many cases of extra people onday shift,who' do support functions, such as reviewing tags, procedures, line-ups, records, etc., and do-not require an active license to perform them., Itis only when he is performing the functions and duties of an operator or asenior operator that an active license is required.*Q. 261. Our Technical Specifications require two senior reactor operators andtwo reactor operators for mode one and two operation. Typically, though, we'llhave others assigned to the shift. Is it NRC's intention that only the twopeople assigned as the balance of plant operator and the reactor operator arereceiving credit for being on shift? Or-are the others manipulating the con-trols getting credit for being on shift?A. .,If utility management-has determined that they are necessary for safe oper-Nation, the decision about the number of additional watchstanders is that of thefacility licensee. Howeverin order to take credit for the proficiency of suchpersonnel standing watch above the Technical Specification'minimums, as a condi-tion for maintaining a license under 10 CFR 55.53(e), the facility licensee mustbe-satisfied that they maintain their proficiency by manipulating the controls,in the' case of an operator, or by manipulating the controls and directing thelicensed activities of licensed operators, in the case of a senior operator.Q. 262. Do candidates with ah RO license in training to-be upgraded to senior.operator lose their active license status per 55.53(e) while standing watch asan extra operator for three months?A. Yes'. If the operator does not maintain the requirements of an RO, he,-loseshis active status.Q. 263. This question is related to actively maintaining a license. Could -someone stand 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> in January and then again in June to meet the activelicense requirement by calendar quarter.A. No. The 40-hour requirement does not pertain to maintaining a license,but is part of the requirement for resuming active status. Maintaining anactive license means standing'the necessary shift watches.*Q. 264. This question concerns active license status at-a dual-unit plant.The shift supervisor is the SRO who normally directs the activities of theoperators. We also have an-SRO on shift who is over both of-the shift super-visors. He does not normally direct the activities of the operators, but-hemay.- Would his supervisory time on shift count as active time?A. Yes. If you look in the Regulations on staffing for a dual-unit site, youhave three SROs for the two units. If he is in one of those positions, thatqualifies him. If he is not in one of those positions, you may still take creditfor his proficiency if you are satisfied that he is maintaining that proficiencyby'man'ipulating the controls and directing'the licensed activities of licensedoperators.NUREG-126275 Q. 265. If an operator gets sick in the middle of February, and has been ac-tively on watch in January and February and has this requirement met but issick for three months before he goes back on the watch, does he have to stand a40-hour watch? You don't have to demonstrate in the prior three months he hasserved 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />; isn't it by calendar quarter?A. Correct. But during the remainder of that quarter he's going to have tocomplete the required number of shifts to be considered actively performingthe functions.Q. 266. What records will-the Commission require to ensure that a licensee has,maintained active status per 10 CFR 55.53(e)? What will be the record reten-tion period?A. It's up to the facility to determine how it wants to be able to documentthe active status. Shift turnover logs would be appropriate documentation.The key is that the documentation be retained and available for review.There are two answers to the question of record retention. If the record isthe control room log, it has its own record-retention requirement, which isessentially for the life of the plant. If you are using the control room logto determine whether the guy was signed in, that's adequate.The certification for his returning to duties is based upon his standing 40hours of parallel watch. On parallel watch, however, he need not sign thecontrol room log. Under those conditions, the responsible official onsitecould create a form which would go into your records onsite and be availablefor audit. That form would have a record retention requirement equal to thatperson's license; that is, six years.Q. 267. The proposed rulemaking said nothing about the five 12-hour shifts orseven 8-hour shifts. What is the basis for this, and why weren't we given anopportunity to comment?A. The previous practice has been for a minimum of one shift, essentially permonth, three per quarter. That was deemed by the Commission to not be suffi-cient, as a part of their review and determination of the final Rule, and theyincreased it to the current requirements in the Rule.Q. 268. Would it be possible for an operations superintendent to direct activi-ties from off his shift, and if so, then would that individual be required tomaintain an active license by actual shift time for a calendar quarter?A. Let me give you what I think is the most practical example: in anemergency, typically, the operations superintendent is the individual whogoes back and forth between the Tech Support Center or provides assistance inan emergency. He gives directions to whoever it is, the Shift Superintendentor the other SROs; so he is not directing the manipulation of the controls;he's providing guidance on how he wants the event to be handled.Someone else in the decision process is actually deciding whether he agrees ordoesn't and directs the activities of the licensed operators in manipulatingcontrols.NUREG-126276 So in that case he is not on shift in the position; he is off shift, respondingin accordance with the emergency plan, which is covered by a different portion-of the regulations.So the operations superintendent need not hold an active license-unless youintend him to go on shift as a shift superintendent.Q. 269. That same logic would apply to day-to-day operations, then, if I under-stand you correctly?A. There is no day-to-day operations issue. He's there fulfilling the posi-tion that's required by the Tech Specs as the operations superintendent;:that -is, independent of proficiency in manipulating controls. We would not expectthe operations superintendent to go in, for instance, and line up systems ormanipulate controls on the board.He needs to be proficient in order to be consistent with the requirements-of,-the regulations', so he would either have to stand 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of parallel duty ormaintain proficiency or keep his hands off the controls.-In the process of examining him for requalification, we would examine him bothat the RO and the SRO level. Your continuing training program should ensurethat he doesn't lose those manipulative skills because he is not required tomaintain an active license.-Q. 270. If our Technical Specification defined the STA position as an SRO- Qnshift, would filling that-capacity satisfy the requirements?-A. Yes.*Q. 271. Consider a plant in cold shutdown with lowered minimum shift manningrequirements. Are the licensed operators assigned to that crew who are inexcess of the minimum cold shutdown staffing requirements actively performinglicensed duties?A. Yes, if you have determined that they are necessary for safe operations,.you maintain administrative control over these positions, and if you are satis-fied that they are maintaining their proficiency in accordance with theregulation.Q. 272. How, and to whomi is certification made under 55.53(f)?A. This section has to do with returning the individual to an active status.A certification must be made and available on file for inspection purposes; itneed not be made to the NRC.Q. 273. It would appear that once a quarter, an individual could spen¶d 40 hour4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />son shift under the direction of the licensed operators. And the facility couldcertify that he-had done so, and that his status in the requal program was cur-rent. And by doing so, he could maintain an active license by spending essen-tially 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> a quarter on shift, instead of the 56 to 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> specified inother-parts of the Regulations? Is-that true?NUREG-126277 A. That is true, although thatis not what we intend. The issue is to make iteasy for people to maintain a license. And that's a decision that the facilitymakes with respect to the commitment of time to the requalification program.If the facility wants to commit an additional 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> for parallel watchstanding in a control room in addition to the requalification program, so thathe can be active, that's their choice. Our intent was to make the minimum sevenwatches at eight hours, or five watches at twelve hours, to maintain theproficiency of those who are actually directing the activities, or manipulatingthe controls. It's a proficiency issue, it's.not a license renewal issue.Q. 274. Are any allowances made in 55.53(f) for off-shift licensed personnelwho are involved in daily operation's supervision?A. No. They are either in active status or they are not. If they are not,their just being a daily operations manager, or an operations superintendent,does not convert them to an active status.Q. 275. Suppose someone completes 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> on shift under supervision; then hisclock starts again for his seven 8-hour periods. If an individual goes throughthis in the last month of a quarter, does he have to complete those seven 8-hourshifts before that month is up, or does he start during the next calendarquarter?A. If he's done 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of parallel watch in a quarter, he's active in thatquarter. For the next calendar quarter, he would need to stand either seven8-hour watches, or five 12-hour watches. Regaining proficiency allows him togo back into an active status to stand watch. He does not have to do both inthe same quarter. That is, he does not have to serve 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> under instruction,plus stand seven 8-hour watches, or five 12-hour shifts in that quarter; it goesto the next one.Q. 276. Could you clarify what you.mean by "parallel watch standing?"A. It's very similar to "being directly under the supervision of," as we use.that phrase for a trainee; that is, the individual that has the watch still hasthe responsibility.The person that's in the parallel situation, even though he's licensed, is notconsidered proficient. The regulation requires that he not manipulate thecontrols or direct activities except under the direct supervision of someonewho has an active license.Q. 277. Do those 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> have to be consecutive; i.e., eight hours a day?A. No. It has to be 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />. You can have four tens or ten fours or anyother combination that adds up to 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />; however, they must be in the samecalendar quarter. -The only explicit guidance in the regulation concerns the seven 8-hour or five12-hour shifts where a full shift means from watch relief to watch relief.NUREG-126278

'AQ. 278. Can licensed Senior Operators who are not in active status performrefueling SRO duties?.A. No. Only active SROs can supervise refueling activities. If they are notactive, they must stand one 8-hour shift under instruction from licensed activeSROs to perform Active SRO duties limited to fuel handling.Q. 279. What leeway do you give to the facility to know that an operator hasreceived a felony conv'iction?XA. Convicted felons typically go to jail, so they're not going to be at work.Also, all those granted clearance for unrestricted access have backgroundinvestigations that relate to such things as convictions for felonies. You willhave access to the information from that source, too.Q. 280. But the facility will not necessarily know within 30 days?A. It is the operator who is required to let us know in 30 days, as a conditionof the license.Q. 281. So, we don't assume any liability for not potifying you within 30 days?A. If you don't know, and you didn't have a reasonable'basis to know, we're.not going to hold you liable for that. However, if-you get a criminal historycheck that shows that the person has been convicted of a felony, we expect youto tell us. 'Q. 282. If we submit an applicant for a license who'has had a'felony 15 yearsago, is that still reportable? If he had taken a licensing exam and was readyto receive a license, would he have to notify'you within 30 days, assuming wedid not know that?A. If the individual knew that he had been':cbrvicted of a felony in thepast, and he did not report that on the initial application, his applicationwould be considered incomplete.' Such an omission could be the basis forrevoking his license, since he would have withheld information.Q. 283. Why is the applicant no'longer required to sign the'Form 396 certifyingthat he or she has no felony convictions?A. Because it is'a condition of a license, per Part 55.53(g) that individualsnotify us within 30 days of a. conviction for a felony. So, should someone geta license who had a prior felony, he would be required to notify us of the priorfelony.Q. 284. If we were to let an individual's license go inactive, would it also bereasonabile'for us to let'his medical requiremerts lapse?A. No, you cannot let-his medical requirements lapse. He must be medicallyexamined each two 'years. That is a condition of his license, whether he main-tains proficiency or not.NUREG-126279 Q. 285. Is there is a purpose for that, if he is going to continue inactive?He is not permitted go on shift, so there seems to be little point to maintainthe medical status up to date?A. The issue is whether he is medically fit to carry out the duties of a li-censed operator if you put him in a situation of watch standing to regain hisproficiency. At that point, he would be permitted to manipulate the controlsof the facility, and/or direct activities. The reason we extended the licensingperiod to six years was to make it coincide with the medical requirement, whichcomes up in two-year cycles.Q. 286. Are licensees who maintain an inactive license required to participatein a requalification program to the same extent as licensees maintaining anactive license?A. Yes. A condition of their license under the new Part 55.53 (h), requiresparticipation in the requalification program.Q. 287. The problem is that standing the shift foreman's license does not pre-pare this person to go out and handle fuel, and I don't understand how doingone watch under instruction does that, how that can guarantee that he's goingto be a safe person in charge of fuel handling?A. We're talking about an SRO limited to fuel handling, not an SRO with anunlimited license here. So if a guy has an SRO license and he'.s an active SRO,he 'can be used as an SRO with no other duties but to handle fuel, or be the-supervisor in charge of fuel handling, with no other duties. If he's a seniorwith a limited license, he's in a different category, because he can't be usedas an SRO. So any active SRO could be a fuel handler senior, but if he is anactive fuel handler and then he doesn't handle any fuel for awhile, or for somereason he doesn't use his license, then he has to only stand one watch, or oneeight-hour shift with an SRO who is an active SRO, or an SRO with a limitedfuel handler, and then he has met that certification again.The only adjustments we've made in the rule for fuel handlers are that, inorder to become active, they only have to stand one parallel shift, which wouldmake it much quicker and easier than the 40 parallel shift, and that the requalprogram is limited only to those aspects of the plant operation to which theirlicense is limited.Q. 288. With respect to the requirements for maintaining operating proficiency,can a licensed STA (SRO License) who is standing the "STA Watch" get credit forSRO proficiency?A. No.Q. 289. We had a concern on restoration of an inactive license as a full-scopeSRO license, and we wanted to use that individual for fuel handling during re-fueling. Would that individual as a full-scope license have to go through the40 hours of concurrent duties, or just eight hours of concurrent duties?A. It would only take eight hours under parallel watch with a person whoselicense is active, whether that's another licensee limited to fuel handlingonly, or it's a senior reactor operator.NUREG-126280 Q. 290. When will the quarter for shift standing start when the new rule isimplemented?A. For accountability purposes the first complete calendar quarter after therule is implemented must meet the seven shift/quarter requirement.Q. 291. Does completion of 7 days on shift in one position such as shift engi-neer, allow the individual to perform duties in another position on shift forwhich he is also qualified?A. If shift engineer is a Tech Spec position required to hold a SRO license,then performing in the seven-8 hour shifts, per 55.53(e) would permit thelicensee to perform duties as either an SRO or RO.Q. 292. Do technical advisors or licensed instructors require an active license,if they must maintain a license for technical specifications or FSAR?A. They may need a license per the Technical Specifications, FSAR etc., but itdoes not have to be "active" per the Regulation unless the individual is re-quired to assume a position onshift that the Technical Specifications identifyas a licensed shift manning requirement.Q. 293. If an operator gets his license during a calendar quarter, how is he tomeet the seven shifts per quarter requirement?A. For the initial calendar quarter for which a license is issued, he is con-sidered to have met the proficiency requirements by virtue of having passed theexam. Thus, the "actively performing" requirement will commence in the firstcalendar quarter after he receives the license.NUREG-126281 K'IV 0 -I IIREQUALIFICATION AND RENEWALC .j -I ..I Ii I.'Crtr.r -I I; AE UI-..I .: ! ..I f.I I.I I I Ir , ,; I I I i -I .: 1I F, .,: I I .I ..-I a I .j ; r I Requalification and Renewal (Statement of Considerations)Q. 294. The regulation says that sometime during that six-year period, a can-didate will get a test. That may be the first year through the sixth year, butthe next time he is renewed, it may be as much as 11 years apart. Is thatcorrect?A. No. In the Statement of Considerations, II(H)(4), the last sentence says,"The NRC will administer these requalification written examinations and operatingtests on a random basis, so that no operator or senior operator will go longerthan six years without being examined by the NRC once a six-year license isissued." That's a direction from the Commission to the staff. That's the sameway we handle the clarification of the INPO status, in the Statement of Consid-erations that goes with the Rule, describing intent. Some operators will receivemore than one NRC-administered exam during the term of their license in orderto comply with the Commission's direction to the staff.Renewal of Licenses (Subpart H, Section 55.57)Q. 295. At what point will the six-year cycle start for present license holders?A. It will start with the first license issuance after-May 26th. We do notintend to amend the present licenses. So on May 25th, someone will get a two-year license. On May 26th, that individual would receive a six-year license.Q. 296. I have 107 licenses expiring over the next two years for which NRCrequal exams are not taken. Where do they stand?A. The renewal of the two-year license is governed by the rules under which theywere given their original license, so no NRC exam is required.Q. 297. We've gone from a situation where at the end of the examination con-ducted by NRC, the results were discussed with the utility, to a situationpresently where the results are not discussed until the license certificate issigned off and the results have been reviewed at the Region. In combiningrequalification exams administered by NRC with initial license exams admin-istered by NRC, will the examiners, upon an indication that a candidate forrenewal was a potential failure as a result of the operating portion of theexam, discuss that information with the utility, or will you allow that personto go back on shift pending the complete review? And how do you expect this toaffect the turn-around time when we're significantly increasing the number ofexams to be evaluated?A. We can't predict how it will affect the turn-around time. Hopefully wewill have the resources to do it within the existing time frame. From thepoint of view of a licensing decision, no decision has been made until thepaper is signed. In other words, it is only a recommendation until the pointthat either the license or the failure has been approved by the branch chief,by the licensing authority.We're prohibited from discussing predecisional information. That's why we donot give preliminary results either on site or from the regional office.NUREG-126282 Obviously, if the examiner believes that it's a safety Issue if an individual .returns to shift, it's incumbent upon him to notify the licensee. We would notleave-the site with a safety issue pending. However, when we leave the site,we don't always know whether an individual has passed or failed all.portions ofthe examination (written, oral, and simulator).Q. 298. What is written evidence of the applicant's experience and how is thissupplied?A. Written evidence will be the same as it is now; as it.is.reporteO on rele-.,vant portions of*Form 398. .-Q. 299. What is the evidence that the applicant has-discharged thelicenseresponsibilities competently and safely,.and howlis this information provided?A. The utility certifies that the individual has performed in accordance with -the terms and conditions of his license, and that he has performed satisfac-torily. It is for you to determine how that performance has been,,throughwhatever mechanisms you want to use; whether it be performance evaluations, or -other information that you-have in your company files related-to that individual.Q. 300. In reviewing pasttperformance under Section 55.57, you.said earlierthat an NRC letter or a letter of reprimand might be part-of what you'd eval- ...uate. Does this mean a letter of reprimand specifically from NRC, or one fromthe site -itself?A. An NRC review would be based upon two things:, the certification from thecompany, and any official enforcement actions taken against the individual thatare in his official docket file. .It does not include information that has-notbeen formally transmitted to the individual under his license, as it must be a-completed action. The fact that an individual is under investigation by-theNRC-may not result in 'something going into his file. It. only goes into hisfile when we complete an enforcementaction and he receives a letter-. _t's,.a...formal notification, 'and there-is guidance.as to what is permitted in the doc-kket file and what is 'not.- Essentially, anything in the NRC docket file hasalready been presented to that candidate, whether it be an examination-gradingreport result,v'or an enforcement action.Q. 301. :'If someone never operates the controls, and he gets a license, thatlicense is renewable. -Why do we then report the number of hours one operatesthe facility-on a renewal? .....A. Although we will renew a license of an individual who has not stood watch,that information may'be helpful-in making judgments on renewal applications in.which the individuals did not fully meet all 55.57(b) requi-rements,.to the let-.ter. For example,.an individual may have been unable to attend every requal.class because' he was participating in-a management course. -The number ofoperational hours'for this person may influence our decision.regarding hisrenewal.Q.'302. When -it's time to renew the license of our shift engineers, can.their-license be renewed in an inactive status, without another examination, if they,have maintained all of their requal requirements?NUREG-126283 IA. For anyone who holds a license, he must be kept current in the requalifi-cation program; he must be medically fit, and he must have been examined at sometime by NRC during the course of that six-year license. The requalificationexamination requirements are applicable independent of active/inactive status.Q. 303. If a licensee is not maintaining an active license in accordance with55.53(f) at the time of license expiration, what are the requirements forrenewal?A. If he is not maintaining an active license, he still must meet all of therequirements for renewal in 55.57(b). However, he does not have to be activeto get his license renewed. He must be, most importantly, current in the re-qualification program, but he does not have to be active to have his licenserenewed.Q. 304. In order to obtain license renewal you must be examined by the NRC atleast once during the six-year life of the license. What is the extent of thisexamination: written, operating, both, either?,A. With respect to format, the requalification exam will parallel the initialexam, i.e., it will include both a written and operating test. The content ofrequalification exams will be based on the facility's learning objectives pro-vided that these objectives are satisfactory..Q. 305. Section 55.57 states that license renewal is going to be based on havingpassed the comprehensive requal exam and operating test administered by theCommission during the term of a six-year license. I believe that you haveinterpreted that to mean that an exam will be given-at least once every sixyears?A. -Yes, that's what the Commission has stated. The Commission has directedthe staff to examine operators at least once each six years-, and that's why weknow that some people may have an exam more than once in six years.Q. 306. What percentage of people will you examine at a time?A. At least 16 percent per year, because we've got to examine 100 percent insix years. In fact, it will be greater than 16 percent because of the random-ness involved in ensuring that candidates don't have prior knowledge of when weare coming-in to examine them.Q. 307. How far in advance will an individual licensee be notified by theCommission of his scheduled examination date?,A. Ten days, minimum; 6 weeks, maximum.Q. 308. Do you need to take examination to renew a two-year license?A. No. The rule is very specific: You need an examination by the NRC onlyfor the renewal of a six-year license.Q. 309. I have some renewal submittals that will hive to be submitted beforethe May 26th date, but the renewal is not until after. Do I submit them underthe existing rules for them to come back as a six-year license?NUREG-126284

___ __ ---4.A. The Form 398 that you use until.May 26, 1987 is the same one that's ineffect today. Even though you submit that-version of the form, if we.issue a.license after the 26th, it will be a six-year license. Any applications sub-mitted after May 26tLh should be on the new Form 398 with the new Form 396.Q. 310. Will the people presently holding two-year licenses have to reapply .the expiration of the two years or will they be automatically extended to theciv-va c e- rvr -?itA. They need to reapply prior'to the expiration date of their current license.Q. 311. Considering-that every utility has or will have an accredited retrainingprogram, what is the justification for the random selection, which would in-clude the 'possibility of having more than one exam in a:six-year period, versusthe possibility of.doing an orderly schedule to include.only one exam in thatsame six-year period?A. It is NRC's mandate to ensure that all licensed operators maintain asatisfactory level of proficiency at'all times. As such, the required exam isintended4to serve as a "spot-check" to verify that that level of.proficiency isin fact being maintained. Further, we want.to ensure that operators can demon-strate this level of competence without special preparation outside of thenormal required.training program.. The Commissioners believe that this is bestaccomplished by randomly selecting the operators to sit for the required exam.To the exteht possible, we will coordinate the exam.schedule with your regularcycles. But'if we~have reason to believethat there is something wrong withthe program,-or we have other indications of problems, we will conduct exami-,nations at times other-than during your requalification cycle.Q. 312. How can the Commission administer a comprehensive written exam onceduring the six-year cycle if the utility is administering their written examspread out over a segmented period?.A. As stated above, the Commission's mandate is to ensure a satisfactory levelof operatorproficiency at all times. It is the facility licenses's responsi-bility to ensure that their required program, although segmented, maintains thislevel of proficiency-throughout the training cycle.Q. 313.. Who will schedule and track each licensed operator to ensure he has hadan NRC exam prior to renewal?A. That's NRC's responsibility.docket files onteach individualrequal exam.It will be tracked in the Regions by tnewhich will conrtain the last NRC-administeredQ. 314.' How soon can someone be re-examined after.failing an NRC exam?A. 'We haveresources for two visits to a facility per year. If the individualfails and-is getting close to the point for renewal, we wquld evaluate on acase-by-ease basis whether our resources permit us to go back and give anotherexamination-before the next regularly scheduled exam.NUREG-1262'85 If he's within, say, six months of renewal, and that's when he's targeted tocome up for an exam, that's a pretty good indicator that he's going to be tak-ing an exam at that next cycle before his license renewal.Q. 315. In the past, if an operator failed the requal exam, he would go intoan accelerated requal program normally administered by the utility. Is thatgoing to remain the same, and, once he completes the accelerated requal and theexamination by the utility, would that be acceptable as far as meeting therequirement of passing the NRC-administered exam?A. No. There are two different questions there, The first deals with theacceptability of the facility's accelerated retraining program to return thatindividual to licensed duties, and this depends upon the status of your requali-fication program. If your requalification program is deemed satisfactory, thenyou have the capabilities under your program of dealing with the failure of arequalification examination.The second concerns satisfying the requirement .for a six-year reexamination.The Commission has directed the staff to administer a requalification examina-tion to each licensee during the six-year term of the license. If he fails andyou have a program that has been deemed satisfactory, you can retrain him andreturn him to shift duties; however, he must successfully pass an NRC-administered requalification examination before renewal of his license.Q. 316. Is the appeal process for the requal examination the same as the ini-tial exam? If so, there are two problems. One is the individual's own self-respect if he fails that exam and he feels he should not have. The other pro-blem is that our program is being judged against the results of that requalexam. If there's something that we feel was amiss during the exam, we shouldhave a method of recourse in having that evaluated.A. The answer is that the appeal process does apply as it relates to theadministrative process. You are provided the opportunity to comment on thewritten examination through the normal process for any written examination.However, the individual does not have the right to request a hearing becausehis license has not been taken away. He still has a license. He can requestan administrative review by the Division Director in the Region and a review atNRC Headquarters if there is a potential for the exam results to precludehis license renewal.If we were to deny the renewal of his license and he was contesting the failureof that exam administratively, he would have the right to a hearing because wehad not granted the license renewal. So in that context, he would be eligibleto request a hearing on the denial of his application for a license renewal.Q. 317. Why weren't the utilities allowed to make public comments on 10 CFR55.57(b)(2)(iv), license renewal requirements?A. The Commission decided to add Section 55.57(b)(2)(iv) between the time ofthe proposed and final rules to allow it to examine licensees during a 6-yearlicense period. This decision was an outgrowth of comments on the proposedrule and is consistent with the Commission's Policy Statement on Training andNUREG-126286 Qualifications, and with Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Part ofthe reason for that decision is that we indicated in the policy statement ontraining and qualifications that we would use the requalification examinationas a mechanism for judging the validity of the industry-accredited trainingprogram process. The Commission is continuing to do that.We have moved out of the training review and are instead judging the ability ofthe individual to perform after training. We make that judgment through anexamining process. That's the reason for it. The Commission has indicatedtheir policy both through the policy statement, which was publicly noticed andavailable, and through a continuation of staff practice.The Commission tied it to renewal to ensure that there was a clear understand-ing on the part of all-operators that this was required, and to eliminate thequestion of "Why me," because in the past, when the staff selected opera-tors for examination, there was always a question of, "How did I get chosen,why not someone else?" In this case, it's clear that it applies to all li-censed operators who hold a six-year license.Q. 318. Will future NRC requalification exams given in conjunction with re-placement tests be modified replacement tests as in the past?A. NRC requalification examinations are developed to evaluate the adequacy ofthe facility licensee's requalification program. Where replacement trainingprogram and requalification training program objectives overlap, duplication ofquestions is acceptable.Q. 319. Since it is six years before any renewals will require the completionof an NRC exam, when will the process of "10-day notice exams" get started?A. As of the effective date of the rule.weeks in advance of the examination date,notice be aiven. -We can notify select(but in no case will li?eeWsQ. 320. Does the six-year license apply to nonpower reactors? DOoperators require an NRC exam prior to renewing a license?A. Operators of nonpower reactors will receive six-year licensessatisfactory license renewal after their current licenses expire.renewal will be in accordance with 55.57.!S Up to sixi than 10 dayst their licenseduponLicenseQ. 321.prior toWhen will the requirement for an applicant' to be examined by the NRCrenewal be implemented?A. That requirement will become effective for all'six-year licenses grantedafter May 26, 1987.. -Q. 322. What will the basis be for "continued need" under 55.67(b)(3)?A. It is the facilityneed for an operator.licensee's-decision as to whether there is a continuedWe will not question the judgment of facility management.Q. 323. Can the requirements of 55.57(a)(4),(5), and (6) be certified on theForm 398?NUREG-1262 87 A. Part 55.57(a)(4), assurance that the applicant has satisfactorily completedthe requalification program, and 55.57(a)(5), assurance that the applicanthas discharged license responsibilities competently and safely, can both becertified in Form 398. For 55.57(a)(6), certification of medical condition,a Form 396 is needed.Requalification (Subpart H, Section 55.59)Q.324. What is required for Commission approval of a requalification program?A. You simply certify to us that you have an accredited program that is basedon a systems approach to training, and that's sufficient.Q. 325. In Generic Letter 87-07, page 24, it states that "The specific cycleg7<Will be approved by the NRC as part of each facility's training program." What'does this refer to?A. It covers programs which are not approved through the accreditationprocess.Q. 326. On the training program approval, if you have an accredited program andyou certify that you're doing an SAT process, that's one method. You alsolisted implementation of INPO Guideline 86-025 as another approach. Can youexplain this?A. The accreditation process has a hierarchy of requirements, the top level ofwhich are called objectives. You must meet the intent of the objective in orderto be accredited, and those are contained in INPO 85-002. The Commission hasreviewed and endorsed the INPO accreditation objectives and criteria as meetingthe SAT or systems approach to training. I believe there are 12 objectives.Each objective has a number of criteria; meet the criteria and you meet theobjective, but the opposite is not always the case. That is, you may not meetone criterion, but you still may meet the intent of the objective through someother mechanism. You go through the criteria and objectives for your self-evaluation.Subordinate to those are the guidelines for licensed operator training, formaintenance training, and for other areas. One guideline is for continuingtraining for licensed operators (INPO 86-025); it gives information about thecontent appropriate for a continuing training program. It also describes howyou evaluate and feed information from plant operations and performance eval-uations back into the process.You clearly do not have to cross all the t's and dot all the i's of everythingthat's in that guideline. That guideline, however, constitutes an acceptablemethod of implementing a performance-based, SAT-based continuing training pro-gram that the staff would find acceptable.The next level below guidelines are good practices. Those are things whichINPO has seen facilities do that worked particularly well for a facility, andthey have provided guidance on those.NUREG-126288 We have concluded that if'you are accredited you understand what the objectivesare, and how criteria are used, and what the process is for developing a systemsapproach to training. We think that understanding, along with recent INPOtraining guidelines provide an adequate basis for you to review your own programsand certify to us that your program is based upon a systems approach to training.We believe that there are two final parts to that. You need to look at the tasksthat are relevant to the job, decide which ones are appropriate for training ona continuing basis, based upon such criteria as importance of the task to thesafety function and frequency of performance. Clearly, emergency procedureswould fall into that category. Shift relief and 'turnover would be outside ofthat category, such that your continuing training program would not addressshift relief and turnover.If you've operated continuously between outages, you would not necessarilyhave performed plant startups and shutdowns. In that case, you may want tofold the startup and shutdown into the continuing training program, and dothat on a simulator.It's that type of flexibility, and reviewing and determining the content ofthe program which we feel is the most important attribute of the change to theregulation. It gives you the flexibility to tailor your program to the needsof the job incumbents, and to bring them up to a comparable level with theinitial training programs through the INPO accreditation. That's the processwe think should be followed. It doesn't mean that everything has to be donein INPO 85-026 with respect to'simulator training, or INPO 85-025 with respectto continuing training. Those are guidelines, and you really need to addressthe issues as to how much of that should be followed or done with INPO, notwith the staff. We are not in the position of reviewing and determining whatconstitutes INPO requirements. *We want to-move out of that.> We will provideour-comments to INPO should we see problem areas for INPO to address genericallywith the industry. We do not want to get into the mode of providing guidanceto individual utilities on how much of an INPO document needs to be followedbefore the staff would accept a'certification. That's for you and INPO to workout.Q. 327. While someone is in an SRO upgrade for (say) ten months, he is not of-ficially in the requalification program. How is that going to affect thatinactive status?A. -If your upgrade program meets the objectives of your requal program, youcan take credit for that. However, if there is a differential there might besome areas that are not covered at all, but are covered in a requalificationprogram. If that individual is no longer current in requalification, to resumeactive 'status,'he would have to receive the remedial training necessary to makehim current with the requalification program. Simply being in the upgradeprogram does not, necessarily, compensate for the requalification program.We hope that that's not an issue that we face very often, because we expect-that most candidates who go into an upgrade program would receive a license asa senior operator and remain cognizant of changes, LERs, and significant events.And upon the date they receive a license, they can manipulate the controls andNUREG-1262':89 direct the activities of others. So, it's only when there's a period betweenthe end of his training and the time he gets a license when you may want to usehim as a reactor operator. He may have to stand some parallel watch with thereactor operator before resuming duties. And that's the point when you wouldhave to certify that he had completed the necessary requirements of the reactorrequalification program, if there are any aspects that were not covered in theSRO operating training.Q. 328. Since Section 55.59(b) indicates that the Commission would acceptadditional training in lieu of a licensee's participation in the requalificationprogram, is it acceptable for a utility to remove certain license holders fromthe requalification program, yet have them retain their licenses if this addi-tional training was provided to them?A. No. Section 55.53(h) requires completion of a requalification program asa condition of a license. In general, a licensee who is permanently removedfrom the requalification program no longer satisfies this condition of theirlicense, and thus has been determined to no longer need a license by thefacility licensee under Section 55.55, Expiration. Only under extenuatingcircumstances (e.g., special temporary assignment, extended illness, removalfrom shift to enter a degree program, etc.) would the provisions of Section55.59(b) be invoked. This will be handled on a case-by-case basis.Q. 329. There is no requirement to modify the Requalification Program documen-tation. We just have to follow the new rule, correct?A. That is correct. You must follow the new Rule, or your existing program,whichever is more restrictive. But you may perform a 50.59 review to bringyour existing program in conformance, and simply submit that. Or, if you needan amendment to the license, you request the amendment, and you would have anadministrative change approved to put your program in conformance with the Rule.Q. 330. Most facilities have an NRC-approved requalification program in theFSAR. For utilities that cannot certify their requalification programs, eitherbecause their requalification program has not been approved by INPO, or it hasbeen approved and does not meet the INPO 86-25 requirements for SAT, how willwe implement 10 CFR 55?A. You will continue to follow your approved program of record, as is documentedin the FSAR, until you either modify it, bring it up to the INPO guidelines in86-25, or take some other action to modify it. That's one way of doing it. Youmay be able to discuss with INPO other alternatives. But you follow the programof record, as modified by the Rule.Q. 331. What is the difference between a requalification program 24 months longfollowed by successive requalification programs and a continuing training pro-gram administered throughout the term of the individual's license? Does theCommission mean to imply something by use of the word "requalification" versus"continuing training?" If so, what is the distinction?A. There is little difference between the two. We expect you on some basisto step back and take a look at the performance of your licensed operators andNUREG-126290 modify your program appropriately to reflect those areas that need continuingtraining. From that aspect, we chose 24 months, consistent with the previousprogram, to be a point at which you would take that formal look at your program.There is no distinction except that the law used the term "requalification,"and that's why we continued with that term.Q. 332. The requalification program must be conducted for a continuous periodnot to exceed 24 months. What is the purpose of the 24-month limit?A. Because it's consistent with defining a fixed-length program. Since theprevious period was 24 months,-we retained it.Q. 333. Is there an intent to look at a 24-month period as an isolated sectionand try to meet certain requirements within a 24-month period?A. The intent is that at the end of that period we want you to do a comprehen-sive evaluation of the program and decide how you need to modify it for thenext cycle. If you want to do it in 12-month or 18-month cycles, that's alsoacceptable. If you want to tie it to refueling schedules that's also acceptable.The cycle cannot be longer than 24,months, however.Q. 334. What is considered a "continuous period" with respect to the conduct ofthe requalification program?A. It's 24 months, then you start over again for another 24 months, and thenanother 24 months, so that you'd have three 2-year requal cycles in the six-yearlicense period.Q. 335. Will the program that breaks for, say, a two-month refueling outage beconsidered a continuous program?A. By "continuous" we mean that it's the same program for operators on shiftas well as off shift, and it's the program as you've described it. There maybe cases where you want to stop it for a period of time, where you are usingsegmented training and you want to teach one segment, and in the next segmentyou, in fact, may have some particular training in the outage that you want tocover prior to the outage.That's the flexibility you have under the systems approach in defining-yourneeds are and sequencing accordingly. -We want one program for all licensed operators. We don't want one schedule orprogram for people on shift and a different schedule or program for people whoare not normal watch standers on shift.Q. 336. Does NRC want to see a comprehensive evaluation of the program on abiennial basis?A. Yes, at least on a biennial basis. That's the intent of the biennialqualification examination being comprehensive. Part 55 requires that theevaluation be used in determination of subsequent continuing trainingrequirements.NUREG-126291 Q. 337. On Page 24 of the supplementary information provided to Generic Letter87-07 is the following statement: "The frequency of the comprehensive re-qUalification written examination has been changed to a maximum of every twoyears." Where is this statement to be found in the text of 10 CFR 55?A. The statement "maximum of two years" with regard to examination frequencycan be derived from 10 CFR 55.59(a)(1) under "Requalification Requirements"where it says "Each licensee shall successfully complete the requalificationprogram developed by the facility licensee that has been approved by theCommission and that the program shall be conducted for a continuous period notto exceed 24 months in duration." The next paragraph says "pass a comprehensiverequalification examination and an annual operating test." So, by inference,the written examination only has to be administered on a two-year basis, wherethe operating test is required on an annual basis.Q. 338. Does this statement mean that written requalification exams can occurless often than every two years?A. No. It must be conducted concurrent with the two-year program.Q. 339. If a utility currently has an NRC requal examination scheduled for thefirst week of June 1987, what will be the impact of this rule on the examina-tion? Will the examination content be covered by the old rule, or will thecontent be upgraded to the requirements of the new rule? If the examinationwill be covering the content by the old rule, when can we expect examinationsutilizing the content covered in the new rule?A. There will be no change for the June exams because preparation of thoseexams has already begun. Only exams given after July 1st of this year will beable to conform to the new rule.For clarification, there are clearly some changes in the rule that will changethe examination. We don't expect that there will be changes in the content ofthe exam, based upon a requal program that's already been done under the currentExaminer Standard, ES-601, where we are auditing individuals who have two-year.licenses and auditing the company's program.Clearly, however, the operating test portion will be documented on the new Form157, and we will be addressing areas that are required by the regulation inconstructing the examination. We aren't going to be testing on areas outsideof the requal program, or the current licensing program at the facilities, butthere will be some change in forms and in the documentation process. The reasonfor that is that those examinations are already in preparation now, and youcan't do 90 days worth of work in the transition period, so we will be continuingto use the materials that were submitted prior to the effective date of the ruleto construct the first few exams after the effective date of the rule, but therewill be some changes in .forms and processing and how it's handled.Q. 340. Can the written requalification examination be given in several sectionsover a period of time or is the intent to administer one complete examinationat one time?A. If you currently have a requalification program in which you've committed toan annual comprehensive written exam, you have to continue giving that annualNUREG-126292 comprehensive written exam until you have-sent in the appropriate documentationthat you have an SAT-based program and that you're 'Moving to a continuous pro-gram that is going to be conducted over a period of 24 months. That's one wayof doing it, sending us a letter telling us when you are accredited and that youhave a requalification program that's SAT-based.The other alternative is what we have done in the past, which is the 50.54change, where you would notify us that you're changing your program. So ifyou're committed to an annual written exam'during this transition period, youhave to continue to meet your commitments until youv'ye notified us that you'rechanging.Along those lines, with regard to the segmented exams, if you currently have inyour protgram an annual comprehensive examination, then we will expect you tocontinue that.;If you have an accredited program and the segmented approach to evaluation isan acceptable methodology under that program, we will allow you to implementyour program. -But realizing that the NRC examination will be a comprehensive examination, weexpect that the program evaluations-that you implement will be comprehensive innature, also-.' For clarification, weekly quizzes that may be given following aweek of instruction tallied together to form one exam probably would not meetthe comprehensive intent of this evaluation process.Q. 341. Written examinations for requalification will be based on initial li-cense material. Should the exam not be limited to the scope of the approved'Requalification Program?A. The requalification-exams are intended to be performance-based and opera-tionally oriented.' To the extent that they're made available to us in thesubmittal following the 90-day letter, we intend to use the facility licensee'slearning objectives that pertain specifically to the continuing trainingprogram. ;We. anticipate that when you have an SAT-based requal training program, it wouldbe modified from time to time, depending on the needs of the job incumbents.As your'needs change, you would'modify your program.We anticipate that those learning objectives might be different from time totime. We would, of course, tailor our exams to those learning-objectives.Q. 342. Would 'it be NRC's -goal to document those differences between the initialexams and the requalification'exams?A. We want you to certify that'you've'got a-requalification program that'sbased upon a systems approach to training; and you should document thosedifferences. -' -iiThat's why we say that when'you do the-initial'task analysis, you should identifythat subset of tasks which are appropriate for' continuing training.NUREG-126293 We believe that to the extent you follow the INPO guidelines in 86-025, you willhave done that. We believe that that's a fair representation of the type ofmaterial that should be contained in continuing training and should be used forthe basis of a requalification examination.Q. 343. Where do we find the standards and criteria for administering the com-prehensive exams for the requals?A. The standards and criteria are identified in Section 55.59, and as far asour implementation, they will be clarified in ES-601.Q. 344. You said previously, where there is an annual operating exam and then acomprehensive written exam every two years, that the NRC exam would count forthe operating portion of the examination. 'Why would that not also be accept-able for the written portion, if individuals were scheduled to have their writ-ten exam during that year?A. We intend for it to be both. If NRC administers a written exam, that willsubstitute for the facility written; if'NRC administers an operating test, thatwill substitute for the facility operating test for that year or for thatprogram, whichever is appropriate.Q. 345. Will section 55.59(a)(2) change the policy of using a licensed SRO towrite/review the written requal examination? If the written examination isgiven every two years, would he still fulfill the requirements of this sectionsince technically he is not taking the exam? Similarly, will the SRO whowrites the performance exam, and is thus exempt from taking the exam for thatyear, comply with this requirement?A. Section 55.59(a)(2) will not change the policy of using a licensed SRO towrite or renew these examinations. However, it is the Commission's intent thatall licensed operators be enrolled in the requalification program and take therequalification exams; further, an individual must take an exam that he did notwrite or review.Q. 346. What will be the duration of the grace period for the implementation ofthe new 10 CFR 55?A. The rule goes into effect on May 26, 1987. There are grace periods identi-fied within the rule for certain aspects of the rule, and those are stated inthe rule.These include operating tests on an annual basis. If an individual is licensedon May 26, 1987, and holds a license, he must have had an operating test byMay 26, 1988, within one year. For an application which you submit in themiddle of that period -- after, say, six months has expired -- he may or maynot have had an operating test, because you would not have been required tocomplete an operating test for everyone until after one year. So if it saysyou've got to examine annually, then one year after the effective date of therule, everyone should have had an operating test. Another example is thecomprehensive written examination to be done at least each 24 months. Afterthe rule has been in effect for 24 months, everyone who was licensed on theNUREG-126294 first day that the rule went into effect shall have had a comprehensive exami-nation, unless, of course, you are accredited, and then you may use a segmentedexam.Q. 347. It appears that comprehensive requalification written exams are requiredonly every two years and operating tests are required once per year. Is thistrue?A. It is true that the written examination will go to every two years unlessyour program commitments are more'stringent. If your current program requiresan annual exam and it is not an accredited program then you will have to notifyus if you intend to reduce that commitment. If it's an accredited program, thenyou can make the changes as appropriate.Q. 348. Our past requal programs, for those facilities which don't have plant-referenced simulators, have not included an operating test. They have includedsome operating evaluations, but not a pure test in the context of the newregulation. Some of the currently licensed operators will be up for renewalimmediately, as soon as the new 10 CFR 55 goes into effect. Will there be atransition period during which it would be possible to get a waiver for thoseoperators because they will not have had an operating test? We do not have asimulator certified by NRC to conduct an operating test. And, in fact, I'm noteven sure if, under the new regulation, we could use our current off-site -simulator to conduct an operating test. So, how do we address'renewal oflicenses for the period between now and when we get our plant-referencedsimulator; or will there be some time after which we will have to do anoperating test?A. During the period between the effective date of the Rule and one yearfollowing, an individual may not have yet had an annual operating test, andyou may put him up for license renewal. After'one year, everyone should havehad an operating test. The issue of whether an operating test'is on a simula-tion facility, or conducted as a plant walk through is a different issue.At least the plant walk-through portion will be required. The issue of doingit on a simulation facility, that would be required by May 26th, 1991. Priorto that time, if you have certified or approved simulation facility, you wouldalso do it on the simulator. If you are currently using a simulator, and weare conducting examinations on it, we expect you to continue to do so, andwithin one year of the effective date of the rule, start examining candidatesusing your current simulator as a part of the operating test for the requalifi-cation program. Also, you have to make sure that the documentation that youprovide for that annual operating test addresses all 13 items in the newRegulation. The Form 157 is the way that we are going to check that. You canuse alternate ways, but you must make sure'you document all 13 items.Q. 349. During this one-year period of transition, do we document, by exception,and ask for a waiver on our requestsfor renewal? Would that be'the appropri-ate way to handle that?A. No, that would not be necessary.NUREG-126295 Q. 350. Must a facility administer annual operating tests to licensed operatorsbefore a certified plant referenced simulator is available?A. Yes. Even though it may not be part of your requal program now, you haveto start administering an operating exam, and if you don't have a simulator,then you would give an oral exam, a walk-through type like we do on the plant.This is one aspect of the transition into the new rule where we are not goingto look for everyone to have completed an operating test on May 26, 1987; butby May 26, 1988, everybody who's been licensed for that last year shall havecompleted an operating test on the facility.We're using a more common sense approach, so if you. submit an application forrenewal for a candidate who has a two-year license now, and you submit it infour months, that individual may not have had an operating test, as is describedin the rule, because he has not been under that rule for a year. We would stillrenew the license and issue him a six-year license.After everyone has been under the rule for, one year, we would not find that hehad met the terms-and conditions of his license if he had not had an operatingtest, because the operating test is to be conducted each year.Q. 351. If an SRO directs the proper action, does that satisfy the ability toperform the actions necessary?A. Yes.Q. 352. We've talked about an annual operating exam to be administered by theutility. What constitutes an "operating exam?"A. If you currently have a simulator on which you or we are conducting exam-inations, then you must include an oral and a simulator examination. It isnot performance of practical factors in a training environment. We've had,for instance, the requirement of the Denton letter to perform certain practicalfactors on an annual basis. People take simulator training and perform thepractical part until successful, whether it takes one, two, or three tries.We are interested in a structured examination. We are not interested in train-ing on the simulator. The structured examination must meet the requirements ofthe regulation as it relates to sampling those areas that are specified underthe regulation. It is a combination on the simulator, if you have one, and inthe plant. If you don't have a simulator, it must be done in the plant.Q. 353. What constitutes by definition, an annual operating exam? In our NRC-approved requal programs we administer what is called an accident assessmentexam. It's an operational type exam, documented by written examination, whichtests operator knowledge and on how they can operate the plant, implementprocedures, diagnose a situation, a transient, an accident, or whatever. Doesthis meet the annual operating exam criteria?A. Look at what is specified in the Regulation by way of observed behavior forthe operating test, and assure yourself that the way you are implementing theexams covers those 12 items for an operating test for requal. The start upNUREG-126296 shut down is the only portion that's dropped out. But control board familiarity,those kinds of things are still being assessed. You need to look at your -program, and judge whether you have met those 12 items for the operating testfor requal.Q. 354. Must the annual operating exam for requalification be given in onetime frame or can that also be broken up into various pieces throughout theyear? -It's very difficult to get everybody done in one year by the trainingstaff.A. For a candidate, it needs to be done at one time, but if what you areasking is that you have 30 people that need to have an operating test, and youwant to spread out the 30 tests over the period of a year,. the-answer is yes.But you can't take an individual and give him a walk-through today and somesimulator evaluation tomorrow and then some six months from now add thosethree pieces up. That would not meet the intent of an annual operating test.Q. 355.. Not even if you broke up the in-plantzand thelsimulator between the dif-ferent weeks in requal, and catch them one cycle a week, get a crew in on thesimulator and maybe the next time they come up, five weeks from then, get thatsame crew up on the plant?-A. Although we have explicitly approved such an approach for the writtenexamination where you are using segmented tests, provided you show that thesum of the parts equals the whole in the comprehensive exam, we have not con-cluded that such an approach is acceptable for an operating test. Our posi-tion is that an operating test, to be effective, must be administered at onetime, and must cover the 12 items' in the rule as a minimum.Q. 356'. Section 55.59(a)(2) implies that the requalification program includesobservations and evaluations of performance and competency by supervisors orstaff members during actual abnormal and emergency procedures at the plant. Isthis required?A. This goes to part 5, evaluation, of the definition of systematic approachto training. The intent is that when the casualties are practiced on the simula-tor, performance would be evaluated by staff members as part of that systematicapproach to training. It's not intended to have those evaluations done on theactual plant.Q. 357. The criteria for the NRC comprehensive requalification examinations aresimilar to the standard criteria for an initial examination listed in 55.41 and55.43. What is the perceived difference-between the two exams?A. The-requalification exam requires a sampling of criteria. If your requal-ification program is based upon a systems approach to training, you will havereviewed the tasks from the initial program which are appropriate for continuingtraining. You-will have chosen those on some criteria, such as frequency ofperformance, safety-significance or other criteria. That's one way of deter-mining the content of your continuing training program.Another way is the feedback from 'performance in the plant: licensee event re-ports, and the like. Another area would include facility design changes and/orNUREG-126297 changes in procedures. Those are the subject areas that we would tend to focuson for a requalification examination.When you move to learning objectives for your requalification program that haveconditions and standards, we would use that as the basis for sampling thecontent of the examination.In the meantime, because that's not fully in place yet, we are using such thingsas the K/A catalogs, which identify the importance of job tasks and are basedupon the industry generic job task analysis. We are also using a sampling plan-- it was referred to as the "examiner handbook" -- where we sample from thatcatalog to ensure that we get a representative sample of the knowledge, skillsand abilities -- the skills being done on the simulator--that are appropriatefor an NRC examination.We intend the initial examination to be different from the requalificationexamination. We will look at the two, even though we developed them in paral-lel; and questions which are not appropriate for a job incumbent -- questions,for instance, on watch relief and turnover or other things which he does on-a repetitive basis -- would be excluded from the requalification examination.We believe that through the informal review process of appeals, and the facilityreview of the written examinations, there are sufficient safeguards in placeduring the transition period to ensure that there was a content-valid examina-tion that was indeed related to job performance.From our review of examination reports from all the regions, the weaknessesconcern knowledge of events that have occurred at their own plant, significantevents at other similar plants, changes to design, changes to procedures, andselection of those tasks from the initial program which are relevant to trainingon a continuing basis. We do not help the operators if we simply repeat theinitial program for continuing training. That's not the intent.Q. 358. How are the current guidelines, which allow requalification examinationsite visits to be extended to every three years based on good SALP ratings oraccreditation, going to interface with 100-percent requalification every sixyears?A. Basically these are two different programs. One is a programmatic evalua-tion looking at the adequacy of the requalification program. The other dealswith the Commission-directed re-examination of each licensed operator on asix-year basis. In the next couple of years, though, we don't expect it tochange very much. It's going to take some time to build up a pool of six-yearlicenses so that we would be conducting the examinations in accordance withthis regulation. So in the near term, those facilities which have betterperformance and have achieved INPO accreditation would have a longer periodbetween NRC visits.Q. 359. On the question of randomness, if in year two a candidate passes theexam, and in year four he fails, the rule says he has to pass it once duringthe six years. Will that stop the renewal of his license?A. No. If he had passed one exam and failed a second one, but was re-examinedby the facility after appropriate remedial training and returned to watch, heNUREG-126298 would have passed an exam and that would be the basis for the license renewal.The rule does not say the last examination administered by the NRC. It saysan examination during the six-year term of the license. And we recognize thatsome people may have more than one.Q.-360. What process will be used to schedule the NRC-administered writtenexamination and operating tests during the term of a six-year license?A. It is our intent that this-will be a random test, performed on a randombasis. We would try not to have double jeopardy, where an individual takesmore than one NRC exam during hi's six-year term. But he may. We will have tocoordinate with the facility. We would, in our 90-day letter, ask for listsof people who would be eligible to take the NRC exam.. This would include alllicensed individuals at the site. If there were individuals who had a vacationscheduled during that time,'or if there were some personal hardship, we wouldwant to know about it. We want to work with your people's needs as much aswe can.Q. 361. This question addresses the random requalification examination and thepe9ding notification. A lot of emphasis is placed on team work and communi-cations, even though the license is granted to an individual. Admittedly,periodically we may rotate a person within a shift due to'illness or vacation,etc., but most of the people, normally three out of the four, usually remainthe same. The potential exists for administering a simulator examination,potentially to four people that don't work together normally. Have we consi-dered the potential jeopardy there, that we have created an environment con-trary to the way we have been trying to teach the operators, in particulargoing to the plant-referenced simulators?A. The examiner standards indicate that when selecting people from shift,you select one cr'ew. That is the mechanism we use. And one crew is approxi-mately 20 percent of those people on shift, unless you have a six-shiftrotation instead of five. And then we look at approximately 20 percent of theoperators who are not on shift, the day-shift workers.,.To the extent we can, we would put them into the crews where they normallywork. But when you consider all the other constraints, such as those who havesix-year licenses, those who have two years, the time frame for renewal, etc.,that will not always be possible. To the extent we can, we want to accommodateyour personnel. We would try to coordinate the examination visits with therequalification cycles that you are'already using.' In fact, in the past wehave allowed the facility to identify how they wanted to combine the crews.We just say these are the guys'we are going to see on this schedule, and youtell us how you want to group them.-But at the same time, there is not going to be a lot of advance notice to theindividual as to when he is going to be examined. It will-be on the order often days to six weeks. Although there may be some comfort in being examined inthe team environment in which training takes place, transfer between teams is apractical reality with which each operator must be equipped to deal, both inthe plant and in the NRC exam.Q. 362. Will a representative sample group of license holders be tested or willthe whole license complement be tested?NUREG-126299 A. In keeping with the'Commission directive, it should be a random sample oflicense holders. All would be subject to exams-. We would coordinate that withyou if there were severe hardships but that would have to be handled on..a case-by-case basis.Q. 363. This concerns the random examinations of licensed operators. How farin advance will I know who will be examined? When will I be supplied with thelist of names, saying that on this day, these people will be examined?A. You will be notified of the examination 90 days in advance in accordancewith ES-601. Typically, ten days to six weeks, prior to the examination, wewill notify you of the individuals who have been randomly selected for therequalification program evaluation. 'Q. 364. Will NRC notify'-the facility in time to facilitate preparation of thelicense holders before taking the requalification exam?A. We will provide ten days to six weeks notice. It was explicit directionfrom the Commission to ensure that examining is done on a random basis -forreasons- that are associated with evaluating the continuing training program,and evaluating and ensuring that the candidate maintains proficiency and anappropriate knowledge level over the duration of his license.We will coordinate the scheduling of examination visits with your regular requalprogram schedules and/or your replacement examination schedules to the extentwe can. But our resources are limited. We are budgeted for two visits peryear to a facility. And if you have a need for more than two to accommodatesome activity, it's likely not to occur without adequate advanced planning.And we will choose candidates from among those who have not 6een examined bythe-NRC before we select someone-who'already has been so-examined. However,some people will be examined twice, so that those who got examined early intheir cycle shouldn't make the assumption that they're not going to see theNRC again for the duration of that period.Q. 365. In the past NRC tested requal every two years and the operators weredrum-head tight-until somebody was randomly selected. Then they relaxed fortwo or three years, depending upon whether everybody had gotten accredited.And then the cycle was repeated. .I'm under the impression that neither NUMARC, nor the operators, nor. anybodyelse, had an opportunity to critique these particular two paragraphs prior tohaving seem them here. It appears to me that as a minimum, NRC is going tohave to give a requal test once a year, if I have requested a hot license testonce a year.A. Your perception is quite accurate. The Statement of Considerations is thevehicle that the Commission used to provide directions to the staff on how toimplement the Regulation, which has always permitted the staff to administerrequalification examinations. The fact that the-requalification examinationhas been made a condition of license~renewal is new. 'NUREG-1262100 There was some concern in the past, of "why me?" "Why not this other guy?"By putting it in the Regulation, and indicating what the intent is, it becomesclear that everyone will, at some time during that six-year license, be examinedby NRC in order to have his license renewed.We are accepting a certification by the facility for two written tests and fiveoperating tests per six years, but the staff will continue to examine in somecases. That is, we will simply choose not to accept the facility's certifica-tion at that time, and we will examine the individual. There may be some caseswhere an individual will be examined more frequently than once each six years.Q. 366. If an operator gets his license renewed, and is-tested in the first year,my arithmetic says that he can't go but one year beyond his renewal. Then,clearly, the frequency is going to be greater, by definition, than once everysix years.A. Correct. That's why we use the term at least once during a six yearlicense.Q. 367., These questions are related to the NRC-administered requal. Would itbe possible for an individual to be selected twice during the six year periodbefore all other individual licensees were selected once?-A. -We intend to select people who have not been selected before selectingsomeone a second time. But that does not preclude this from happening, if wegot everybody else. If we've been through all of the people with six-yearlicenses, and we are still sampling, it is possible for an individual to beexamined twice.-Q. 368. So, it's random, but the pool from which the random selections are madegets smaller asopeople are selected?A. It could get larger, based upon more six-year licenses being issued. Atsome point it will reach equilibrium, where everybody has a six-year license.Q. 369. Is this a testing of the requalification program, or is it testinghuman beings every six years? I feel that it may have been a step backwards inraising the anxiety level of the population of operators who are going to be uptight every year. That's why I don't understand the Statement of Considera-tions, because I'm just concerned about those people.A. It says that we're going to test so that nobody goes more than six yearswithout being tested, and means that some are going to get examined more thanonce in six years. It's our view that if a licensed operator is going throughan effective, continuing training program, then there shouldn't be any concernwith that person getting an NRC exam because our exams are designed to confirmthat the individual has maintained a minimum acceptable capability. If he isgoing through a continuing training program, our expectation is that he is wayabove the minimum that's acceptable.-Q. 370. I feel perfectly comfortable that our operators, and our supervisors onshift can safely operate our units. The vehicle you are using to measure therequalification program is improperly aimed at obtaining those results. If we.NUREG-1262101 focus the requalification program on problem areas, design changes, and eventsin the industry, it's fairly narrowly focused. But the exam looks at a targetarea beyond that, that has not been covered, for memory/recall type things, andit's unrealistic to see the operator be able to pass that, or the senioroperator, or anyone else.But if the exam were focused on what the requal program had focused on, thenthe focus is on target. 'You ought to be able to pluck an operator off shift,have him evaluated, and expect that he'll do fine. But when it's not aimed at,the same material, very little probability exists of him doing well on the exam.A. We understand your comment, and we recognize that both groups are tryingto move'to the point where we are using content-valid examinations to measureperformance. We have a ways to go, and we are working on that. And we thinkyou all-have ways to go in describing adequately the content of the continuing:training program. Eventually, we will get to the point where we have closureon the scope and content validity of a requalification examination.Until then, there is going to be anxiety. We believe that with the administra-tive review process for examinations, there are-adequate safeguards to ensurethat improper questions can be challenged, and that the questions are appropri-ate to the job. We have provided some tools to do that, and they need to beused. And until we get conservative feedback both ways, and recognize that theobjective is to measure that individual's performance, the imperfect tools thatwe are using now aren't going to get much better.And that is a challenge to the industry, to really take a hard look at the INPOguidelines in continuing training programs, and to consider how your program ismodified to meet those objectives.We've had problems with exams in the past, and we probably will in the future.We have found problems with requal programs in the past, and we'll probablyfind problems with those programs in the future. But we have not taken actionagainst individuals by way of revoking licenses, or other activities. We doexpect that 'until remediation is provided, those who fail are removed fromshift-standing duties until they are brought back up to speed.And if they feel-that the examination is unfair, they can request a review of-the examination by the Regional Division Director, and they can subsequentlyrequest a review by the Director of DLPQE. We are serious about improving thequality of exams and getting them content validated.Q. 371. What would happen if, by chance, an individual wasn't selected duringthe six year period?A. The NRC intends to administer a comprehensive written exam and operatingtest to 'every licensed operator at least once during the six-year term of thelicense. In the unlikely event that an individual did not receive such an exam,we would take immediate steps to initiate one. However, we would have to con-sider that he had made a timely application for renewal, and as a result, hisexisting license would remain in effect. But we would not issue a new licenseuntil we had examined the individual.-NUREG-1262102 Q. 372. What occurs when an individual fails the NRC-administered requalifica-tion exam?A. First, the individual is removed from licensed duties and placed in an ac-celerated training program. Once he has successfully completed all remedialtraining, he must pass a facility-administered examination to ensure that allweaknesses have been corrected. If that facility's training program receivedan NRC rating of marginal or unsatisfactory, this examination may be overseenby the NRC, in keeping with the alternate approach to requalification evalua-tions which was recently adopted by NRC.In addition, it should be noted that in accordance with Section 55.57, alloperators must pass an NRC-administered requalification exam during the term ofthe six-year license.: Therefore, if this individual failed the NRC-administeredrequalification examination and has not passed anotherNRC-admifnistered examduring the term of his current six-year license, his license will not be reneweduntil he has passed such an examination.Q. 373. Is there any minimum period before a person gets into the requalifica-tion pool, after getting an initial license?A. The clock starts the day'he gets his six-year license. But if we give arequalification program audit, and there are individuals on site with two yearlicenses in effect, they are also in the pool to be randomly selected for anevaluation of the requalification program, in accordance with Examiner'sStandard 601. So, don't assume that only six-year people may be chosen.Q. 374. 'Part 55.59 states'that in lieu of accepting certification by the fa-cility'licensee'that the'licensee has passed written examinations and operatingtests'administered by the facility licensee, the Commission may administer;comprehensive requalification written examinations and an annual operatingtest. Will this'testing take the same form and frequency as the previouslyestablished 20 percent testing at 50 percent of the utilities in the Region?A. Yes. It will have essentially the same form except it will now be about16 percent of theoperators at all facilities in the region every year. For'clarification, you can anticipate that the operating test will resemble theone that would be given for an initial candidate, but the written exam wouldbe geared directly 'to'job performance. The written exam is going to have tobe operationally oriented.Q. 375. Will requalification exams be administered to non-approved requalifica-tion programs?A. As we see it, there are no such programs. You are operating under presentNRC approval under old Appendix A, new 55.59(c), the requal program, or youhave an INPO-accredited SAT-based requal program. There can't be anything out-side of those.Q. 376. Prior to the issuance of this rule, people developed their requal pro-gram with two taskmasters: one, the INPO accreditation process, and the other,the relatively non-task based aspects'of Appendix A., Now that the utilitiesNUREG-1262 103 have got the flexibility to withdraw or to remove the non-task based part ofthe old programs, which may take some time, what is the approved program in theinterim? Is it the old program?A. Yes, you must follow the NRC-approved program, which was based previouslyin Appendix A to Part 55, until such time as you send to us a letter whichcertifies that you are accredited and that your program has been based upon anSAT approach. We don't believe, however, that that is such a big task. Someof the material we required in the past falls into the kinds of things that canbe used in an SAT-based program.Whether that set constitutes 80 percent coverage or 70 percent coverage, we'renot sure; but the real issue is the flexibility to design your program basedupon program evaluation and feedback from on-the-job performance to factor inchanges in procedure, changes in design, licensee events, industry events, andif you look at the programs that have been approved by the NRC, those have beenrequired.In some cases, because of the need to cover so many hours in theyou've had a competition for time available to conduct training,items have been covered in the discretionary time left.So we think that's a major advantage, and it's one that we wouldto look at carefully and to implement as quickly as you can.classroom,so importantencourage youYou have to follow your approved program, but by May 26, 1987, that approvedprogram has to be brought up to at least meet the requirements under the newrule. If you have an Appendix A approved program in place currently, then onMay 26th, you can submit a certification that you have SAT program which nowmeets the requirements of the new rule, but if you do that on May 26th, toupgrade to the SAT program, the program you have in place has to comply. Nomatter what it is, it has to comply with the new rule on May 26, 1987.If you do not intend to upgrade to an SAT program, you can continue to followthe format of your old program, but that old program has to meet the require-ments of the new rule on May 26, 1987.Q. 377.part ofWhat is the intent of the Commission to approve specific cycles as aeach facility's training program?A. Once the programs are certified as SAT programs, it's not our intention torecertify these programs on any particular basis. Item No. 5 brings in thecontinuing process of change that should reflect the feedback from the perform-ance evaluation of your program. The Commission will not be requesting periodiccertification. You certify once and update to indicate when subsequent accredi-tation was achieved.In the first round of accreditation, you have a specific date that you wereaccredited. Through that process you have a requirement to submit a report attwo years and to be re-accredited at four years. You would simply send inanother letter that says, "My programs have been again accredited," and thatwould be all that's required based upon the Commission's endorsement in thepolicy statement as it exists today.NUREG-1262104 Q. 378. By what means.is a utility to certify to the Commission that theirrequalification program is both accredited and based upon.a systems approach totraining? The interpretation for implementing a systems approach to trainingis somewhat different by the NRC and INPO. By what specific standards-is ourcertification for using a systems :approach to training.based; i. e., the NRC'scriteria'utilized in conducting pre/post accreditation'site evaluation, orusing the INPO 85-002 criteria?A. The two are equivalent; that is, NUREG-1220.is essentially a series ofquestions related to each of the five elements-of a systems approach to trainingas it's described in the policy statement. In that same policy statement, theCommission has endorsed the.INPO accreditation objectives and criteria as being.a systems approach to training.The.difference comes about.in that INPO has 12 objectives and about-60 subor-dinate criteria.. The Commission in the policy statement identified fiveelements, and the Staff has a number of questions that we'use for information-gathering in our reviews. However, we would prefer that you use theINPOaccreditation objectives and criteria and supporting documents;,in particular,for your requalification program.There is clearly a hierarchy-of documents within the INPO program. Objectivesneed to be met. Criteria may or may.not be met if you can still meet the ob-jectives. Guidelines are just that--they are guidelines, an acceptable way ofdoing business as INPO would review'it.That is very similar to the.staff's approach in doing our postaccreditation.audits. We have questions that relate to each of the five elements that theCommission has endorsed. Those questions do not imply criteria. They aresimply areas where we gather information. So the simple answer to the questionis follow INPO.We have seen several cases where the requalification program was not based upona systems approach to training; rather, it was based upon a training programdocketed.with the NRC, that the NRC had approved. It was very prescriptive. -It was, "Conduct X number of hours of classroom training, perform certain prac-tical factors on the simulator in accordance with the Denton letter," etc.Because of a reluctance onthe part of.the utility to change commitments thatare required by license condition or regulation, many of those programs werenot changed to a systems approach.Effective May 26th, you can remedy that prior restriction by simply sending aletter to NRC which indicates that you are accredited and that you have.-developed your requalification program on a systems-approach-to-training basis.That's.the most important aspect of this rule. It gives you the flexibility tocontrol the content of continuing training based upon the needs of the individ-uals who-have been trained, and the feedback mechanisms which are, described.Most important is Element 5 of the systems approach to training; program re-vision based upon evaluation of performance on the job. That's where we seethe major payoff, and we think that we are giving you the .flexibility thatyou need to fully implement the industry commitments through training andLaccreditation.NUREG-1262105 K>Q. 379. What criteria is the Commission going to use to approve programs de-veloped using a system approach to training?A. If you are asking the NRC to approve a requalification program that's basedon a systems approach to training, we don't look forward to trying to do thosekind of reviews. We'd rather see a submittal indicating that you have anINPO-accredited program, which has both initial and requalification trainingbased on an SAT.If you were to ask NRC to review a training program that was not INPO-accredited,that you claimed was based on a systems approach to training, we would try touse the document that we now have to evaluate that, NUREG-1220.For clarification, if your program is accredited, and you're not a cold plantlicensee, then prior to receiving an operating license we fully expect that youwill use the INPO accreditation process and the guidelines that have recentlybeen issued by INPO in their continuing training guidelines for licensedoperators to develop your requalification continuing training program.We will accept a simple statement to the effect that this has been done. Weaccept as fact that you have been accredited, and therefore that you under-stand the process of developing performance-based training. We do not expectto review such programs. I don't think INPO would like us to review programsagainst their criteria and to put them into that context. We are trying to, inthis rulemaking, clearly differentiate between training programs, which arebeing handled by the industry initiatives through NUMARC and INPO, and licens-ing requirements and the NRC examination. We don't want to mix those two, andwould probably have discussions with facilities that propose to do otherwise.Q. 380. As far as the INPO document,86-025, is concerned, you just say "aslong as you are following the guidelines." Do you expect verbatim compliancewith the guidelines, or just general compliance?A. There is a hierarchy of criteria within the INPO program, starting withobjectives. Then you have criteria guidelines. You must meet the intent ofthe objective. That's a "shall." When you get down to the criteria, you maynot meet all of them verbatim. For some you may have alternate methods.Guidelines indicates what INPO believes would be acceptable to meet the intentof the criteria and the objectives.Your program has mechanisms for reviewing and deciding how you put that processin place. The fact that you are accredited is evidence to us that you under-stand how to use that process and those guidelines. We don't need to see thedetails, based upon the fact that you have been through accreditation.The principal goal for revising the requal programs is to allow feedback fromoperating problems, particularly licensee events, plant design changes, proce-dure changes, and other aspects of training for which there is a demonstratedneed, and not to be constrained to X number of hours in a class, because that'swhat's been required in the past.Q. 381. What if I put in 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> of simulator time, although INPO says 120,but we're doing okay with 80?NUREG-1262106 A. That's between you and INPO and your needs under a program which utilizesthe SAT process. We have confidence in the process based on our evaluation-ofa number of facilities. We may get back into training programs if we see per-formance deficiencies on the job, through an event or through our inspectionprogram.We have developed guidance, the series of questions in NUREG-1220, as to howwe're going to go about evaluating programs. So that you know what you considerto be fair game for us to look at. But we are not in the mode of telling INPOwhat to do. That's for the Accrediting Board, INPO, and the facilities to -determine.Q. 382. Will your evaluation of the training program be in accordance with the'guidelines in NUREG-1220?A. Yes. We have had a number of discussions with INPO on-it, and we have beenusing that for our post-accreditation review.Q. 383. Will a change to FSAR Chapter 13 (to satisfy new 10 CFR 55 requirements)be considered a decrease in the scope of an approved operator requalificationprogram requiring prior NRC approval, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(i)?A. No. That issue is addressed in the Statement of Considerations, where itindicates that this Rule supersedes all other previous requirements. Even 'though the Rule may have caused a decrease in the scope of your requal. programit has already been sanctioned by the Commission in its approval of this Rule,.provided your program is INPO accredited. If it's not, then you must follow d;50.54(i); so you must determine if it has decreased in. scope..Q. 384. Applicable portions of Title 10, Chapter 1, Code of Federal Regulationsare one of the lecture topics for a requalification program. Can you be morespecific as to which portions of Title 10 are applicable, or is that "up to theplants to determine?A. You just cited the NRC Rules and Regulations, which includes such things asTech Specs and amendments to licenses, and things like that. So, there are l;many Title 10 issues, including the radiation protection standards in part 20.The subject matter of those lectures should be determined by the plants tosatisfy the training needs of their operators.Q. 385. Paragraph-(c)(3)(i) of Part 55.59 requires certain manipulations to beperformed annually. 'This list of manipulations differs .from the list in theHarold Denton letter of March 28, 1980. Our requalification program is basedon the Denton letter. -Howlong do we have to modify our requalificationprogram to be in compliance with the new 55.59 requirements?"A. The rule supersedes and should include the requirements of the HaroldDenton letter of March 28, 1980. If there are commitments in your program thatgo beyond those identified within the March 28, 1980, letter, then you willhave to entertain an amendment to your Tech Specs to bring your program to thatminimum level specified within the rule. Otherwise, we expect you to have aprogram that is modified and in compliance with rule by May 26, 1987.NUREG-1262107 Q. 386. Section 55.59(c)(3)(v) states: "A simulator may be used in meeting therequirements of paragraphs (c)(3)(i) and (3)(ii) of this section, if it repro-duces the general operating characteristics of the facility involved and.the arrangement of the instrumentation and the controls of the simulator issimilar to that of the facility involved." Fort Calhoun will continue to usethe Combustion Engineering (CE) simulator in Windsor until the plant-referencedsimulator is available for training. Is the CE simulator approved for meetingthe applicable requirements until such time as a referenced simulator is avail-*able? The same question applies to the discussion in Section 55.59(c)(4)(iv).A. Yes, until May 26, 1991. This is now a part of your requalification pro-gram and will continue to be a part of your requalification program until youeither have a certified or an approved simulation facility.Q. 387. Does NRC agree with the utility interpretation that they may use thenonplant-referenced simulator as the preferred device when it comes to therequalification training program's on-the-job training control manipulations?A. The word "preferred," we would think of as "equal." There is a nuance forthe control manipulations -- the on-the-job training in items (a) through (f).In the Rule, under on-the job trainings it says, "A simulator may be used inmeeting the requirements of paragraps (c)(3)(i), and (c)(3)(ii) of this section,if it reproduces the general operating characteristics of the facility involved,and the arrangement of the instrumentation and controls of the simulator issimilar to that -of the facility involved."This difference permits the use of the nonplant-referenced simulator for-startup, shut down, and other things which are not related to casualty control, evenafter you have certified or received approval of your simulation facility. Itspecifies that you must use the certified or approved simulation facility forthe operating test, and for Subparagraphs (g) through (aa) of the Section, whichare the casualties.So, you may use a simulator other than an acceptable simulation facility forcontrol manipulations for requals. But you must use the acceptable simulationfacility for casualties after May 26, 1991,- or after you have been certifiedor received approval. It provides you some flexibility during periods whenyour simulation facility may not be available for routine control manipulations.Q. 388. May a utility use a certified simulation facility for requalificationtraining programs, such as on-the-job training in control manipulations, ormust some control manipulations be performed using the plant controls?A. If you look at the list, it just says you can't do casualties on plantcontrols. Items A through F in 55.59 are eligible to be performed-either onthe plant or with an approved or certified simulator.These relate to start-ups and shutdowns and changes of power of more than 10percent, manipulations which you can perform on the facility without puttingit in danger. It is your option. You may either do those on the plant or onthe simulator.For the remaining items that are required annually or for the operating test,those must be done on a simulation facility. They may not be done on the plant.NUREG-1262108 Q. 389. With respect to licensed operator/senior operator requalification train-ing, is it appropriate that utilities assume they can take credit for therequired annual and biennial plant control manipulations completed on asimulation facility (nonplant referenced) if their programs have been approvedby the National Nuclear Accrediting Board?A. Yes.Q. 390. Can a utility whose training programs have not been accredited by theNational Nuclear Accrediting Board and which does not have a plant referencedsimulator take credit for plant control manipulations that are performed on anonpiant referenced simulator?A. If that's what your approved program is now, then there will be no changeto that approved program until you get your own simulator, or until May 26,1991 at which time the regulation requires that the training portion be doneon a certified or approved simulation facility. There's an exception, inSection 3, "On-the-Job Training," that you may substitute your accredited pro-gram for those requirements. So if you are able to talk INPO into accepting asimulation facility other than a plant-referenced simulator, that's between youand INPO, but for the purposes of the staff's review, we would expect you touse the simulator after it has-been certified if you do that before the May 26,1991, with one minor exception, which has to do with the first six on-the-jobitems listed under 55.59(c)(3). In that case, you need not have a certifiedsimulation facility or an approved facility. The words permit you to useanother simulation device. Section 55.59(c)(3)(v) permits the use of a simu-lator which reproduces the general operating characteristics of the facilityinvolved, if the arrangement of instrumentation and controls of the simulatorare similar to those of the facility involved.- It only requires the fidelityof a plant referenced simulator for the casualties.Q. 39L Must all six manipulations listed in Paragraph (55.59)(c)(3)(i) beperformed biennially, or just one of the six?A. Items A through L must be performed annually.. All therest are performedbiennially. All of the first six items must be performed, either on the plantor the simulator. The rest are casualties, that must be performed on asimulator.Q. 392.- Is it correct that Section 55.59 has now added fuel manipulations tothe required items to be done annually? They are more than what's in theHarold Denton letter. We have renewals coming up during the summer of 1987,and the training program has been ongoing for the last year. There may be somemanipulations that, in fact, have not been accomplished on the simulator on anannual basis by July of 1987 that 55.59 now says should have been done on anannual basis.A. There are two parts to this answer. First, the requirements in Sec-tion 55.59(c)(3), with the exeption of the sequence, are identical to those inthe Denton letter; no fuel manipulations are required. Second, although thenew requirement exists, the annual manipulations don't have to be completed foreverybody until the regulationfhas been in effect for one year.NUREG-1262109 Q. 393. In 55.59, "ON-THE-JOB-TRAINING," loss of electrical power is one of themanipulations that needs to be performed. Is that loss of off-site power ordegraded power sources, such as the loss of half of your emergency bus or is ita total blackout?A. It may be both. That is, it could be a total loss of electrical power, orit could be loss of power, particularly involving buses or consoles.Q. 394. If we want to run those scenarios, either one would meet that?A. That is correct. But remember that, according to that Section, you may notdo casualties on the plant. The break-out in the Regulation specifies thateverything below a loss of coolant event is an accident. The malfunctionsand faults are done on a simulator. But the permissive part is for the othermanipulations, the control manipulations, that may be done on the plant or on asimulator.Q. 395. Must plant control manipulations during the requalification period bedocumented on Form 398?A. The documentation hasn't changed for that particular item of the 398 Form.You still have to certify that the control manipulations were done. Only wherethere would be exceptions to the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.8 would thereneed to be some amplifying comments made. For example, if you did five similarmanipulations, evaluated them and concluded they were acceptable, you mightwant to point that out in the comments section on the Form 398.Q. 396. If a license holder fails the written requalification exam or operatingtest administered by the Commission during the six-year license term and sub-sequently participates in the approved accelerated requalification program perSection 55.59(c)(4)(v); will certification of successful participation in thisprogram be acceptable for renewal, or will a second NRC-administered examduring the six-year term be required?A. 'A second NRC examination will be required. That individual can go backon shift after failing the NRC requal exam, after participating in upgradetraining and passing the facility's own evaluation. However, the terms of theRegulation are that for renewal he must pass an NRC-administered exam.Q. 397. Must licensed Operator training records be retained for the life of theplant?A. Those that deal with the six-year license, per se, only need to be kept forsix years. However, some facilities have committed to record retention require-ments in their Technical Specifications which are more restrictive than thisregulation. In order to get the relief that the regulation permits, you mustsubmit an administrative change request to amend your Technical Specificationsto make the record retention requirements equal to six years or the term of theindividual's license.This Rule supersedes all previous requirements for operator licensing andtraining, unless you currently have a more restrictive requirement. In thatcase, there are two vehicles you can use. One is an amendment to the license,NUREG-1262110 J-if a formal amendment is necessary. The other is a 50.59 review, which youcan do administratively and then notify us that it has been completed when youindicate your other changes at'the:end of the year. In any event, you mustconform to the requirements of the regulation, particularly those that aremore restrictive than your current program.Two examples immediately come to mind. Most people today have an annual writtenexamination. The Rule would permit you to go to a two-year examination. Thechange to go to a two-year exam.can be processed under 50.59 and it does notconstitute a reduction in scope if the change is for the purpose of conformingto the regulation.That is, the Commission, in the process of reviewing the regulation, concludedthat there were compensatory measures for changing from a one-year written examto a two-year written exam. In this case the compensatory measure is the annualoperating test. So it does not fall into a reduction of scope and it does notrequire prior NRC approval unless it happens to be involved in an amendment tothe license or the Tech Specs.Q. 398. This is a question about documentation of exams given at the plant.Under the requal program, it says that we must keep the student's answers forthe period of the license. Does this mean that we must keep those exams asquality records and keep them for the lifetime of the plant, or are you saying'that we keep it for the term of the license?A. It's for the term of the operator's license. And in this case, for example,his records would include six operating test examination forms, and three com-prehensive written examinations in his individual file, until such time as hislicense is renewed, andthen you start over again. Now, if you use a segmentedexamination in lieu of a comprehensive exam for each requal program, and youhave more than three written exams, then that's a function of how you structureyour program. You keep them only for the term of that individual license.Q. 399. So, are you saying for any operator exams that we administer, once weare past the renewal stage,.-we could destroy those as long as we have qualityrecords to back up the fact that he had the exam -- in other words, the grades,and so forth?A. Given the fact that he was in a requalification program before, and youcertified that, the answer is yes, you could put them in other quality records.Q. 400. On initial operator exams, are we required to keep the exam itself, orcan we just keep a summary that goes in the operator's history file -- a sum-mary of his grades, and things like this? We currently keep the master examsand a copy of the answer key, but are we required to keep the individualstudent exams and his answers?A. Our requirement is that the actual exam,ior copies of the actual exam, bemaintained for the-duration of-the current license. When you get that licenserenewed, you may eliminate that material from the files and start over.Q. 401. So are you saying once an operator gets a license, we could do that onthe initial files, too?;NUREG-1262 111 A. That is correct. The requirement demonstrates that you've met the require-ment of the Regulation to conduct operating tests and comprehensive writtenexaminations during the term of that particular license.Q. 402. How are microfilm records authenticated to meet 55.59(c)(5)(ii)?A. They are authenticated by an authorized representative of the facility.Q. 403. Could you comment on the use of video tape as far as exam documentation.You mentioned keeping a deck log where you would recover strip charts. Wouldyou give us some comment on the use of video tape?A. We do not intend to use video tape or the equivalent of instant replay duringan examination. The records that we are looking for are the same records thatwould be used for a post-trip review, essentially the same documentation. To theextent that the simulator has the ability to retain the scenario, and you candown load that to a computer tape, you could retain and use that tape.Q. 404. I'd just like to make one comment on that. That's fine, I think, ifthe scenario includes a trip. If you're starting in mode four with a scenario,it's more difficult to recover those kind of parameters that you would need torecreate the scenario.A. The problem with a TV tape is that it is incomplete. You may not heardiscussions between the candidate and the examiner because of how microphonesare placed. We generally stand back, but at times we are at the operator'selbow.We have been asked on numerous occasions whether the facility would be allowedto video tape for either record purposes or training purposes. We consider itintrusive, both on the candidate and the examiner, and incomplete.Q. 405. Most of the manipulations that are listed in the Regulation are notapplicable to test and research reactors. Are we still operating under the tenmanipulations in a two-year period, as we have been in the past?A. If that was in your approved requalification program, it would-remainapproved.Q. 406. Is it possible for requalification examinations administered by the NRCto be "split", such that the written and operational exams are given duringdifferent site visits?A. This is Regional prerogative, on a case-by-case basis, with advance noticeto the licensee.Q. 407. A licensed RO is enrolled in the facility's SRO upgrade training pro-gram. NRC chooses this individual, randomly, to participate in their requalprogram evaluation examination. He fails the NRC administered exam, yet he ispassing or has passed all portions of the upgrade program to this point.Does he have to be withdrawn from the upgrade program, go through acceleratedrequal for RO requal exam failure, and be reexamined, or can he just drop ROqualification and pursue an SRO license?NUREG-1262112 A. A licensed operator must meet the requirements of the facility's requali-fication program which generally requires accelerated training and/or reexami-nation. His status in other facility managed training programs is the preroga-tive of facility management. If the facility elects to "drop RO qualification"for the individual under 10 CFR 55.5(a) the individual could make applicationfor an SRO license under 10WCFR 55.31. However, the individual would not be anSRO upgrade candidate as that status assumes a active RO license.Q. 408. Will written exams administered by NRC for requalification be totallyobjective, totally subjective, or some combination?;A. They will be a combination of both. Some examination questions are writ-ten with the intent of meeting the definition of an objective question. Anobjective question is defined as one in which: (1) there is only one correct-answer; and (2) all qualified graders would agree on the amount of credit al-lowed for any given candidate's answer.Q. 409. Will persons holding a two year license be included in NRC requalexams during the transition?A. Persons with valid licenses may be included in NRC'exams. However, re-newals will be under 55.57 which requires the facility licensee to indicate aneed for renewal of the license.Q.-410. Please clarify paragraph 55.59(c)(4)(iii). What is being asked for?A. The regulation requires a formalized, documented system for evaluating theperformance and competency of licensed operators and senior operators. Thesystem must include observation of on-the-job performance and evaluation ofthe operator's performance and competency through the use of an operating test.The operating test must include evaluation of actions taken during actual orsimulated events which require the use of abnormal and emergency procedures.Q. 411. Concerning paragraph 55.59(c)(3)(iv), what does "on a regularlyscheduled basis" mean?-A. The facility licensee must establish a review schedule that will providereasonable assurance that each licensed operator and senior operator is know-ledgeable of all abnormal and emergency procedures. At a minimum, the schedulemust require the review of all abnormal and emergency procedures at least onceevery two years.Q. 412. Where preplanned lectures are part of the requal program, is it neces-sary that the licensees participate in all of these lectures, notwithstandingsuccessful completion of the written examinations following these lectures, inorder to be able to say that the licensee has met the requal program require-ments on the NRC-398 application?A. Under revised 55.59 no provisions for exemption of lectures is provided.If currently approved programs contain exemption provisions for licensed in-structors the programs should continue until the programs are accredited.NUREG-1262 113 INPO guideline 82-026 contains exemption provisions for instructors who teachspecific subjects; however, they must attend lectures in subjects they do notteach.Q. 413. Paragraph 55.59(b) implies that the NRC is notified when an individualfails a comprehensive written examination or operating test. Is this arequirement?A. The NRC does not expect to be notified if a licensed operator or senioroperator fails an examination. Requalification programs have provisions foraccelerated training. We expect facility management will provide the necessaryretraining and reexaminations before returning to active license status anoperator or senior operator who has failed a requalification examination.Q. 414. How will individuals who are in non-compliance with accreditated re-qualification training programs (i.e. extended illness, jury duty, etc.) berequalified?A. Operators will be required to make-up missed portions of the requalifica-tion program and to submit evidence to the Commission of successful completionof the training.Q. 415. We have a program where we have licensed maintenance people as seniorreactor operators limited to fuel handling. To what extent will this new ruleapply to us, since in the comments preceding the rule there's mention that thisis not being covered, that it's going to be covered as it is currently beingdone.For the past 14 years, as long as we've had SROs limited to fuel handling, wehave not been required to give operating exams. Our annual requalificationexam is a written exam only.A. For a license which is conditioned to fuel handling only, the testing andrequalification program should be appropriate to the license as it's condi-tioned. The licensee is not permitted to operate the facility. You wouldtherefore not be required to give him an operating test, as described in theregulation.NUREG-1262114

.l ..f iI: r I-. ~ -CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART-50 r ,.11..pI ..., .i .,.....1 ..7 1I. .1, Q. 416. The new 10 CFR 50.54(i-1) requires us to notify you of any change inthe scope of our program. Since we are not defining for you what our programis now, what is it that you are looking for?A. Let's say that you are using an NRC-approved program today, and you make amodification to that program to conform to the Regulation. Say you go from anannual written examination to a comprehensive examination each two years. Youmay do that pursuant to 50.59, and simply amend your FSAR at the next update.Or, preferably, you would be accredited, have completed your review of yourrequalification program, and confirmed it as.a systems approach to training.Both methods may be done pursuant to 50.59. They do not require amendments tolicenses. It is only when you have committed to something that's a part of thelicensing document. For instance, some facilities have the Denton letter incor-porated in their Technical Specifications, associated with staffing on shift.You need to look at your commitments on a case-specific basis for your utility.Our intent is that you be able to do most of those under 50.59. They wouldnot'require review and approval by the staff in advance of your implementingthe change.Q. 417. Previously Part 50.54(i) referred to a decrease in scope, frequency,or duration. Now all you are saying is scope. Is that correct?A. Yes. The reason for that is that the Rule specifies that you'shall havea duration of no longer than two years, and it must be followed. The programthat you use through INPO describes content.Q. 418. What about frequency of the parts?A. That's covered by the systems approach to training, where you look at thetask that is performed, and you decide what it is. And that's why we excludedthe classroom, OJTi, ad examination portion of requalification given that youcertify that your program is done in accordance with the systems approach totraining. For clarification, although you may be giving segmented exams in'your requalification program, you should be aware that if NRC conducts a re-.,qualification exam At your facility, it will be a comprehensive written examand will include an operating test.Q. 419. The systems approach to training in itself is subjected to revisionsto the training program. Some of these changes may be considered, at least bythe utility, as a reduction in scope. The statement in 50.54 is still there,where it says that Commission approval is required for a reduction in scope ina training program. How do we meet 50.54 and still comply with 55.59?A. The key words are "except as specifically authorized by the Commission."The Commission-itself, in the Policy Statement on Training and Qualification ofNuclear Power Plant Personnel, op March 20, 1985, particularly Element 5, indi-cates that it expects the program to be evaluated and revised as necessary,based upon job performance needs.We recognize that if you only added and never subtracted, you would eventuallyget to the point where you're putting all the time into training and never115NUREG-1262 doing anything on the job. We expect the evaluation to be reasonable basedupon what you're doing. If you want to substitute something that's more impor-tant, the fact that you've dropped something does not constitute a reductionin scope for a systems approach to training.We believe that's a major improvement in the whole training process. You arenot locked into doing something for the next six, seven, or eight years becauseyou committed to it in 1980. You now review it and, if it's meaningful, youperform it -- you control that evaluation process.Q. 420. With respect to that area of 50.54 changes, which basically statesthat we will have a requalification program and that we cannot lessen the scope,what documents would be looked at as base documents to see whether we did ordid not reduce the scope?A. We will look at your approved requalification training program.Q. 421. In the 50.74 requirement, you have set up some direction as to sendingall correspondence for Part 55 to the Region. However, because this is a Part50 requirement, should we be sending that to the document control desk in ac-cordance with Part 50.4, which became effective in January of 1987? All cor-respondence required under Part 50 was supposed to go to the document controldesk, with a copy to the Regional Administrator. Please clarify.A. Communications under each part of the regulation have to conform to thecommunications requirements of that part.Q. 422. Is the licensee definition under 50.74 the same as the licensee defi-nition in 10 CFR 55?A. Yes.Q. 423. If a licensee is out of conformance with the INPO-accredited trainingprogram, is that reportable pursuant to 10 CFR 50.72 and 50.73?A. It's not reportable to NRC, but you may need to report it to INPO, alongwith what you're doing to get back into conformance. It may be reportable toNRC if you have certified that someone is a graduate of an accredited programand that he has completed the program, then you find that you have not implementedthe program adequately. In that instance, you may have a reporting requirementto NRC.NUREG-1262116 OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINERSTANDARDS (NUREG-1021)

Q. 424. What weight does NUREG-1021 carry?.A. The purpose of the Examiner Standards, NUREG-1021, is to ensure uniformityand consistency among the'regions in the conduct of the examination process.It provides direction to the regions on how we expect them to conduct the -operator licensing function. We audit the regions against that Standard. Itdoes not impose new requirements. That is, the-requirements'that are addressedin the Examiner Standards flow.from other documents whether it be aRegulatory Guide, or Regulation, *or other guideline.That's why many of the changes-to Examiner Standards described result fromthe change to the Rule,,the moye.authoritative document. The standard containspolicy on how to carry out-.the.Rule.Q. 425. It was mentioned that theiMcense examiners would be filling out asimulation facility fidelity feedback report ,Could we request that those re-ports be included in our copy of-the examination packages when they are re-turned to us?-A. They will be. That has been incorporated into'Rev. 4 to the Examiner Stan-dards. The simulation facility fidelity feedback report Is contained in Exami-ner Standard ES-104 "Procedures for Postexamination Activities," as section C(3),which requires that a Simulation Facility Fidelity.report be prepared for eachexamination including simulator evaluations of candidates..- The Standard alsorequires this report to be part of the-Examination Report sent,-to the facility.Q. 426. Will the SimulationtFacility. fidelity Feedback Report be used to'deter-mine the status of'current simulators?A. The guidance to the examiners is that this information-will be applicableonly to simulation facilities' that have been certified'or have applied forapproval. However, even-today, with .thepresent vintage ofssimulators, youstill receive informal feedback reportslin. the exam review process. And that'will continue. If the'Examiners have' a problem conducting the operating testat your simulator; you can expect'.some feedback, although it won't be as formal.as would occur after certification or approval.Q. 427. It was stated earlier that once Form 474 is submitted, the simulationfacility is certified in accordance with ANSI/ANS 3.5, and that there are threedifferent mechanisms that may trigger the process of further evaluation:(1) questions regardingtheForm 474'submittal, (2) random visits to thefacility for evaluation, and (3) the post-examination activities associated withthe examination at the facility.Would the procedures for the simulation facility evaluatioh feedback due by May-- specifically, ES-104.-- be specific as to the standards and criteria andmechanisms by which. the examiners will make a post-examrifiation evaluation of afacility that would .then trigger'the evaluation procedure?A. No. The mechanism is intended to be' essentially a-simple comment sheetthat might contain a comment.to the effect that "During Scenario X,' the simula-tion facility failed to.perform as expected.' 'There-wasno flow coast downassociated with reactor coolant pumps on a loss of.power.".117 'NUREG-1262 This type of comment would be collected and evaluated. Someone would thendetermine whether it raised a question in our mind that would be the basis forgoing back and looking at the simulation facility.It's not significantly different from comments on the simulator in the examina-tion report -- the inspection report that's issued following an exam. If thereare a number of random failures, that's the kind of information we'recollecting.There is no acceptance criteria threshold. It's the examiner's judgment. Ifhe felt there was a problem, we're giving him a vehicle to write it down andcommunicate it back so that knowledgeable people can look at it and decidewhether that would trigger an inspection or evaluation.Q. 428. Typically after that type of evaluation, there's not going to be a sig-nificant amount of data by which someone away from the facility, someone whowas not there at the time of the examination, could make a very objective oraccurate determination as to whether there is a problem with the simulationfacility or not; and I understand that there are a significant number of freezes.If, during an overpressure incident, pressure continues to rise to 3,500 pounds,then obviously there's a problem with the simulation facility, but other ex-amples may not be so clear-cut. Therefore, there's a potential for NRC followupwhere, perhaps it was not warranted because of an evaluation made by someone whowas not there when the event occurred.,A. That's why we're getting the feedback from the examiner who was there atthe time it occurred. The facility will also receive a copy of the writeup withthe inspection report, and I'm sure it will be a subject in the exit briefingwith the chief examiner at the end of the exam week.We think there are adequatemechanisms in place to alert the facility as towhat the potential concern is, but most importantly, we want to get feedbackon how well the simulation facility is working during an examination basedupon an examiner's observation of that simulation facility.Further, we have been increasingly requesting that facilities record data duringsimulator exams to the greatest extent possible so that information is availablefor review on a more objective scale.Q. 429. We are required to complete training and experience blocks on Form 398because we don't yet have an acceptable simulation facility, even though wehave an INPO-accredited program. Will we still be evaluated in accordance withcurrent ES-109 requirements?A. Yes.Q. 430. Under eligibility, you previously cited Examiner Standard 109. Inthe future an accredited program with an acceptable simulation facility may besubstituted for eligibility. Examiner Standard 109 says two years of powerplant experience is required. Does that requirement remain?A. A facility with an INPO-accredited training program that utilizes a certi-fied or approved simulation facility need not meet other experience requirements.NUREG-1262118 Revision 4 to the-examiner standards' revises ES 109 to conform with theRegulation..Q. 431. Examiner Standard 109 lists the eligibility requirements for licensedoperators and senior licensed operatoreapplica ts. One of these requirementsis that'each individual spend three months'on shift'aS an extra man under thesupervision of a licensed or senior licensed operator. Is this requirementstill in effect? Where does this requirement come from, given that it is notaddressed in 10 CFR 55, and the new revision supersedes previous requirements?A. Although not a requirement, this is consistent'With our past practice, andit's consistent withoReg Guide 1.-8, which endorses"ANSI13.1-1981. It will becontinued in ES-109. Facility litensees 'can ask for a'waiver, and their re-quests will be considered.Q. 432. Examiner Standard 109 'says that training conducted as part of a licenseprogram cannot count for experience. 'ButANSI/ANS 3. 1-1981, which is what theCommissioners have'toldius to use, allows'related tethnical training to count: T -r.lO 4n enmnlianre with'3.1?Tor experience~. .5 J-.U I WI X~ll

• h_A. The training time that doesn't count as experience refers to the trainingrequired by the approved license'program in which/the individual is partici-pating. Related technical-trainlngrefers to" training he may-have received inanother position, such as auxiliary operator. This time may be counted, up toa certain percentage.Q. 433. There was an-article in Nuclear News,'January 1987, page 42, that saysthe average pass rate for the industry on requalification exams administered by,the NRC is 78 percent nationwide. 'Examiner'Standard'601 says that in order fora requalification program to be evaluated as satisfactory, 80 percent or morehave to pass. This indicates that the industry, nation-wide, has less than asatisfactory requal program. Co you agree?A. No, because the statistics that Nuclear News used' are somewhat question-able. Last year we evaluated 17 facilities, and 5 of them fell in the marginalor unsatisfactory'category because they had substantially higher failure rates.So, a few are causing the national statistics to be different. It was similarthe year before, when we had five facilities" that were ithe marginal or un-satisfactory category. ! .The programevaluation is based upon whether'SO percent-or more pass. It's notbased upon the average scores of the candidates taking'the exam. In otherwords, if you examine 10 candidates, and 2 fail, you have 80 percent passingand we determine that-program is satisfactory. The average-score on that exammay be 78 per cent because the 2 people that failed scored in the 60s, whileeverybody else scored above 80.Q. 434. Assume that NRC comes in to give-the utility requalification exams,and the scores are between 60 and'80 percent and are rated marginal.' After theutility modifies their 'program, reexamines those failures, 'and comes out with asatisfactory grade, does NRC change that from a marginal to acceptable program?A. The marginal rating would be based on'the examination given, in accordancewith ES-601. We evaluated the program and identified individuals with weak-nesses. They require remedial training, which is given. Their training willNUREG-1262119 not cause us to revise our evaluation. Two years hence, when we come back anddo another evaluation, hopefully 80 percent will pass at that time, and you willbe evaluated as satisfactory. The original evaluation and conclusion standsuntil we come back and re-evaluate, either by inspection or re-examination.Q. 435. Is that true, even if our program was modified to cover those weak-nesses that you discovered?A. Yes. Your program may, indeed, no longer be marginal. But until we comeback and independently evaluate, that remains our conclusion of record.Q. 436. So, the only way we can get that changed, is for you to come back togive another exam, is that true?A. Yes, we come back and inspect that area, and reach a conclusion based onour inspection at that time.Q. 437. Can we ask for such a re-evaluation?A. Sure.Q. 438. What limits on materials requested from the facility licensee exist,if any?A. We will be reasonable, but there are no specific limits. Typically, we gothrough the list with the facility, and indicate what items we' need. We arenot going to ask for the whole library or every print on the facility. However,we may need more material at times than you issue to the student to learn theplant, because we have to get familiar with different plants that have slightdifferences from one type'vendor to another. So, we may-need more in-depthmaterial.Q. 439. We receive a copy of the written exam after it has been administered,and as part of the documentation, we are provided with the learning objectivesof the source documents from which these questions were derived. For simulatorexaminations, could we be provided with that same documentation, since we go tothe effort to develop scenarios that are based on industry events, LERs, andlearning objectives that we've derived from our program so that when you designyour simulator exams, they would also be based upon these same precepts?A. We currently fill out Attachments 3 and 5 to Examiner Standard 302, whichdelineates the objectives that the exam events are trying to accomplish. Thosehave been provided to all the individuals who have failed the examination. Forindividuals who passed, we have provided only Attachment 3, the delineation ofthe overall exercise itself, malfunction by malfunction, or over-ride by over-ride. We have not been providing Attachment 5 to individuals who pass. If yourequest, we can provide you a copy of Attachment 5, which contains our objec-tives for that examination.Q. 440. With regard to IE Information Notice (IEIN) No.85-101 "Applicabilityof 10 CFR 21 to Consulting Firms Providing Training," is training material thatis found deficient reportable under 10 CFR 21?NUREG-1262120 A. The answer is yes under certain conditions. IEIN85-101 provides guidanceto licensees and consultants concerning applicability of 10 CFR 21 to certaintraining activities provided by consultants. Further information regardingreporting requirements can be found in NUREG-0302 Rev. 1, "Remarks Presented(Questions/Answers'Discussed at Public Regional Meetings to Discuss Regulations(10 CFR Part 21) for Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance."Q. 441. Would the review of the exam to make our comments within the five,working days also apply to the simulator exam?A. The comment procedure has been limited to the written examination by theExaminer's Standards. You can comment, obviously, on our simulator exam, andwe are more than willing to listen to what you have to say. But we have notbeen going through a formal comment procedure for the simulator exam. One ofthe reasons is that the simulator examination is on-going during the course ofthe week. And the written examination is given typically in the first day.And, usually, by the end of the week, you provide us with your written examcomments, and that expedites the grading process.Our present practice does not solicit written comments on the simulator examfor grading purposes. Normally the dialogue established with the simulatoroperators (training staff) is adequate to resolve any weaknesses in the simu-lator scenarios prior to their execution. Otherwise, written comments areaccepted during an appeal process for an individual candidate.NUREG-1262121 Appendix AGeneric Letter 87-07 UNITED STATESNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONWASHINGTON, D. C. 20555MAR 1 987TO ALL FACILITY LICENSEES

SUBJECT: INFORMATION TRANSMITTAL OF FINAL RULEMAKINGFOR REVISIONS TO OPERATOR LICENSING -10 CFR 55 AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS(Generic Letter No. 87-07)To provide information about the final revisions to 10 CFR 55, 'Operators'Licenses," and their implementation, the Commission Is holding a series ofpublic meetings. These meetings will be held as follows:A. April 9, 1987 for Region IIRichard'B. Russell Federal Building.Strom Auditorium, Lower Level'75 Spring Street, SWAtlanta, GeorgiaPoint of Contact:' Mr.Kenneth E. BrockmanUS Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II101 Marietta Street, Suite'3100Atlanta, GA 30323(404) 331-5594 XB. April 14,`1987 for'Regions IV and VStouffer Concourse Hotel3801 Quebec StreetDenver, Colorado (Across from Stapleton Airport)Points of Contact: Mr. Ralph CooleyUS Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region IVParkway Central Plaza Building611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000Arlington, TX 76011(817) 860-8147Mr. Phillip MorrillUS Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region V1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210Walnut Creek, CA 94596(415) 943-3740C. April 16, 1987 for Region IIIRamada Hotel O'Hare6600 N. Mannheim Road (corner of Higgins)Rosemont, Illinois (One mile from O'Hare Airport)Phone: (312) 827-5131Point of Contact: Mr. Thomas BurdickUS Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III799 Roosevelt RoadGlen Ellyn, IL 60137(312) 790-5566.78703190287A- D. April 20, 1987 for Region IHilton Hotel Valley Forge251 West DeKalb PikeKing of Prussia, PennsylvaniaPhone: (215) 337-1200Point of Contact: Mr. Noel F. DudleyUS Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region I631 Park AvenueKing of Prussia, PA 19406(215) 337-5211Enclosed with this letter is a double-spaced copy of the regulations andsupporting information for your review prior to the public meeting. You areencouraged to. forward questions to the appropriate point-of-contact, one weekprior to the date of the meeting which you plan to attend. The staff intendsto answer these questions and others during the meetings and will consolidateall questions and answers into a NUREG report after the meeting.In preparation for these meetings, alll1censees should pay special attentionto the requirements of Sections 55.31(a) and 55.59(c) regarding both initialand requalification training and the option of substituting an accreditedtraining program for initial and requalification training programs previouslyapproved by NRC. This option may be implemented upon written notification tothe NRC and does not require any staff review. However, because of conflictsbetween previous 1OCFR55 Appendix A requirements and a systems approach torequalification training, it is necessary to certify that the substitutetraining program is both accredited and based upon a systems approach totraining. The superseded training program description contained in the FSARneed not be revised until the next update required by 50.71(e).

Sincerely,arold R. Denton, Directorffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

As statedA-2 1 0 CF'at 0ad5erator~~~~~~~- LieseanCofrigA ndntP.;

Federal Register / Vol. ~~No. 57 / Wednesday, -Marchv 25; 1987 k esand, Regtzlationd 95gmknown brucellosis in cattle for theperiod of 12 months precedingclassification as Class Free. The Class Cclassification Is for States or areas withthe highest rate of brucellosis. withClass A and Class B in between.Restrictions on the movement of cattleare more stringent for movements fromClass AStates or areas compared withmovements from ree States or areas,and are more stringent for movementsfrom Cass B States or areas comparedwith movements frosm Class A States orareas, andso on.The basic standards for the differentclassifications of States or areasconcern maintenance of: (1) A cattleherd Infection rate, based on the numberof herds found to have brucellosisreactors, not to exceed a stated levelduring 12 consecutive months: (2) a rateof infection In the cattle population.based on the percentage of brucellosisreactors found in Market CattleIdentification (MCI)-testing atstocky ads and slaughtering.establishments-not lo exceed a statedleveh (3) a surveillance system thatrequires testing of dairy herds,participation of all slaughteringestablishments in the MCI program.Identification and monitoring of herds athigh risk of infection. including herdsadjacent to infected herds and herdsfrom which infected animals have beensold or received. and (4) minimumprocedural standards for administeringthe program.Prior to the effective date of thisdocument, Alabama was classified as aClass B State because of the herdinfection rate and the MCI reactorprevalence rate. However, a review ofthe brucellosis program establishes thatAlabama should be changed to Class Astatus.In order to attain and maintain ClassA status, a State or area must (1) notexceed a cattle berd infection rate, dueto field Strain Brucela abortus of 025percent or 2.5 herds per 1.0W based onthe number of reactors found within theState or area during any 12 consecutivemonths, except in States with 10.000 orfewer herds; (2) maintain a 12consecutive months MCI reactorprevalence rate not to exceed onereactor perl.OOOcattle tested (0.10percent); and (3) have an approvedindividual herd plan in-effect within 15days of locating the source herd orrecipient herd. Alabama now meets thecriteria for classification as Class A.Executive Order 12291 and RegulatoryFlexibility ActWe are issuing this rule Inconformance with Executive Order12291. and we have determined that it isnot a "major rule" Based on Informationcompiled by the Department. we havedetermined that this rule will have aneffect on the economy of less than 6100miilion: will not cause a major increasein costs or prices for consumers.individual Industries, Federal. State. orlocal government agencies, orgeographic regions; and will not cause asignificant adverse effect oncompetition. employment Investmentproductivity, innovation. or on theability of United States-basedenterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises In domestic or exportmarkets.For this action, the Office ofManagement and Budget has waived itsreview process required by ExecutiveOrder 12291.Cattle moved interstate are moved forslaughter. for use as breeding stock, orfor feeding. Changing the status ofAlabama reduces certain testing andother requirements on the interstatemovement of these cattle. However.cattle from certified brucellosis-freeherds moving interstate are not affectedby these changes In status. We havedetermined that the changes Inbrucellosis status made by thisdocument will not affect market patternsand will not have a significant economicImpact on those persons affected by thisdocument.Under these circumstances. theAdministrator of the Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service hasdetermined that this action will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities.Executive Order 12372This program/activity Is listed In theCatalog of Federal Domestic Assistanceunder No. 10.025 and Is subject to theprovisions of Executive Order 12372.which requires Intergovernmentalconsultation with State and localofficials. (See 7 CFR Part 3015, SubpartV.)Emergency ActionDr. John K. Atwell. DeputyAdministrator of the Animal and PlantHealth Inspection Service for VeterinaryServices. has determined that anemergency situation exists. whichwarrants publication of this interim rulewithout prior opportunity for publiccomment. Immnediate action Iswarranted in order to deleteunnecessary restrictionston theinterstate movement of certain cattlefr6m Alabama.Further, pursuant to administrativeprocedure provisions in 5 U.S.C. 33. it IIfound upon good cause that prior noticeand other public procedures withrespect to this interim rule areImpracticable and contrary to the publicInterest, and good cause Is found formaking this interim rule effective lessthan 30 days after the publication of thisdocument in the Federal Register.Comments are being solicited for 60days after publication of this document.and a final document discussingcomments received and anyamendments required will be publishedin the Federal Reiaster as soon aspossible.List of Subjects In 9 CFM Part 78Animal diseases. Brucelloss. Cattle.Hogs Quarantine, Transportation.PART 7-BRUCELLOSISAccordingly. 9 CFR Part 781Iamended as follows:1. The authority citation for Part 78continues to read as follows:Authority. 21 USC. l1l-114a-l. 114g. 115.117,120.121.123-125. 134b. 1s4E 7 CFR 2.17,2.51. and 371.2(d).1 78.41 lAnmnddI2. Section 78.41, paragraph (b) isamended by adding "Alabama"immediately before "Arizona".3. Section 7841. paragraph (c) Isamended by removing "Alabama".Done in Washingon. DC. this a0h day ofMarch. 1987.B. G. Jhnson .,DeputyAdministrotor. VeterinaryServices.AnimalandPlant Heolth Inspection Service.(FR Doc.87-421 Filed 3-24-87:8:45 am)BUWO COOM 344NUCLEAR REGULATORYCOMMISSION10 CFR Parts 60 and 55Operators' Licenses and ConformIngAmendmentsAOENCv: Nuclear RegulatoryCommission.AcTxs: Final rule.euwUAnr The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission is amending its regulationsto (1) clarify the regulations for issuinglicenses to operators and senioroperators; (2) revise the requirementsand scope of written examinations andoperating tests for operators and senioroperators. including a requirement for asimulation facility; (3) codify proceduresfor administering requalificationexaminations; and (4) describe the formi u and content for operator licenseapplications. The rule is necessary tomeet NRC responsibilities under Section13-l 9454 Federal Register / 4t N52,o. 57 / Wednesday. March 25, 19r Rules and Regulations306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of1982.DATES: Effective Date: May 28. 1987.Public meeting dotes: April 9, 14t .and20. 1987.ADDRESSES: Public meeting locations:Public meetings will be held to discussimplementation of the requirements ofthis rule. The meetings will be held asfollows:A. April 9. 1987 for Region iH. RichardB. Russell Federal Building, StromAuditorium. Lower Level, 75 SpringStreet. SW., Atlanta. Georgia.Point of Contact Mr. Kenneth E.Brockman. U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. Region IL 101 MariettaStreet, Suite 3100. Altanta, GA 30323.(404) 331-5594.B. April 14,1987 for Regions IV and V.Stouffer Concourse Hotel. 3801 QuebecStreet, Denver, Colorado (Across fromStapleton Airport).Points of Contact. Mr. Ralph Colley.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Region IV. Parkway Central PlazaBuilding. 811 Ryan Plaza Drive. Suite1000. Arlington. TX 7601, (817) 860-8147.Mr. Phillip Morrill. U.S. NuclearRegulatory Commission. Region V. 1450Maria Lane. Suite 210. Walnut Creek,CA 94590. (415) 943-3740.C. April 18, 1987 for Region IlLRamada Hotel O'Hare, 6800 N.Mannheim Road (comer of Higgins)Rosemont. Illinois (One mile fromO'Hare Airport). Phone: (312) 827-5131.Point of Contact: Mr. Thomas Burdick.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Region HI1. 799 Roosevelt Road. GlenEllyn. IL 80137. (312) 790-5586D. April 20. 1987 for Region I, HiltonHotel Valley Forge. 251 West DeKalbPike. King of Prussia. Pennsylvania.Phone: (215) 337-1200.Point of Contact: Mr. Noel P. Dudley.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Region 1 831 Park Avenue. King ofPrussia, PA 19400.(215) 337-5211.Background information for the ruleincludes a copy of the regulatoryanalysis, the supporting statement forthe Office of Management and Budgetclearance of the information collectionrequirements. Regulatory Guides, ANSI/ANS standards, NUREG-seriesdocuments. other documents discussedin this notice. and reports that contain adetailed analysis of the publiccomments received during the publiccomment period and their resolutionmay be examined at the NRC PublicDocument Room, 1717 H Street NW,Washington. DC.A single copy of the reportsconcerning public comments may beobtained from Chief, Operator LicensingBranch, Office of Nuclear ReactorRegulation. U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. Washington, DC 20555.Telephone: 301-49Z-4888FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT

.Chief, Operator Licensing Branch, Officeof Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: (301)492-486&SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:1 BackgroundSection 107 of the Atomic Energy Actof 1954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137).requires the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission to prescribe uniformconditions for licensing individuals asoperators of production and utilizationfacilities and to determine thequalifications of these individuals and toissue licenses to such individuals. Theregulations implementing theserequirements are set out In Part 55 ofTitle 10, Chapter 1, of the Code ofFederal Regulations. To assist licenseesand others, the Commission also hasissued regulatory guides and genericletters that provide guidance onacceptable methods of meeting theseregulatory requirements.The Commission has becomeincreasingly aware of the need to updateIts operator licensing regulations andrelated regulatory guides. Theserevisions are needed to clarify theextent to which simulators should beused in licensing examinations and toreflect upgraded requirements forlicensed operator selection, training, andrequalification programs resulting fromthe accident at TMI-2 Although theCommission has been actively engagedin Investigating these matters, theschedule for completing these activitieswas further accelerated by theenactment of January?, 1983, of theNuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, Pub.L 97-425. Section 306 of that act (42U.S.C. 10228.96 Stat. 2201 at 2282-2283)directs the NRC to establish (1)simulator training requirements forapplicants for operator licenses and foroperator requalification programs, (2)requirements governing NRCadministration of requalificationexaminations, and (3) requirements foroperating tests at civilian nuclear powerplant simulatorsOn November 2A .1984 theiCommission published proposedamendments to 10 CFR Part 55,"Operators' Licenses' In the FederalRegister (49 FR 46428), Theseamendments proposed granting. In part.a petition for rulemaking (PRM-55-1)that was filed by KMC. Inc. PRM-55-1 isdiscussed more fully under Section nLIL"Medical Requirements." A 90-daycomment period expired on February 25,1985. Comments were received from 88respondents. An additional 47 -:respondents commented on the threeassociated regulatory guides, also Issuedfor public comment. Reports that containa detailed analysis of these commentsand their resolution are available asindicated under "ADDRESSES:.-These proposed revisions to 10 CFRPart 55 were to improve the operatorlicensing process and to achieve thefollowing objectives.t(1) Improve the safety of nuclearpower plant operations by Improving theoperator licensing process andexamination content,(2) Provide the NRC with an improvedbasis for administering operatorlicensing examinations and conductingoperating tests, and(3) Respond to the specific directiongiven by Congress In Section 306.Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Pub.L 97-425. to promulgate regulations andguidance In the area of examinations.On March 20. 1985, the Commissionpublished a Final Policy Statement onTraining and Qualification of NuclearPower Plant Personnel (50 FR 11147) thatdescribes the Commission's currentpolicy regarding training of operators. Inaddition to this policy statement, theCommission is publishing the new rulesdescribed in this notice; these rulessupercede all current regulations foroperator licenses. Those facilitylicensees that have made a commitmentthat is less than that required by thesenew rules must conform to the new rulesautomatically. Those facility licenseesthat have made a commitment differentfrom or more than that required by thesenew rules for license amendments andtechnical specification changes, mayapply to the Commission so that theycan conform to these new rules. Other-changes should be made in accordancewith 10 CFR 50.59Production facilities previouslyincluded in Part 55 are not referenced inthe revisions since there are nooperators at production facilitiescurrently licensed by the Commission.Although special consideration has beengiven to the smaller size and scope oftest and research reactors therequirements In this notice apply to allutilization facilities licensed under 10CFR Part 50, Including test and researchreactors. Consequently, except wherespecific wording has been used to notedifferent requirements, these rules applyto test and researchreactorsB-2 Federal Register / Vol. 5,_jo. 57 / Wednesday. March 25. 1987 I_;pI and Regulations945IL Summary of Public Comments andFinal ActIonsThe proposed amendments to improvethe operator licensing process have beenmodified in response to the comnunnreceived. A summary of the publiccqmments and, where appropriate. adescription of the changes that resultedfrom iem followsI(A) General Commentu-(1) General.purpose of these amendments. Severalcommenters provided general supportfor the proposed rule. Other commenterssuggested changes to clarify the purposeand exemptions sections. These sectionswere reworded as a result of theevaluation of these comments. Inparticular, the purpose of the nrle.indicates that terms end conditions ofoperators' licenses and renewal arecovered. Exemption for trainees at afacility Is clafried to indicate that atrainee is only exempted whileparticipating in an NRC-approvedtraining program to qualify for anoperator license. In addition, employeesinvolved In fuel handling are exempt Ifthey are supervised by a licensed senioroperator.(2) Definitions. Many commenterswere concerned with the specificdefinitions In the rule. A namber ofcommenters addressed the definitions ol"simulation facility" and "Plant-referenced simulator." and requestedclarification of the NRC's

Intent

for theuse of such devices in the Oartialconduct of operating tests. Severalcommenters believed that only plant-referenced simulators would bepermitted.The definition of a "plant-referencedsimulator" Is Intended to mean asimulator that meets an of therequirements of ANSI/ANS 5.5985. asendorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.149."Nuclear Power Plant SimulationFacilities for Use in Operator LicenseExaminations." (see Section V.Regulatory Guides. of thisSupplementary Information).The definition of a !,simulationfacility- Is intended to provide forflexibility in the conduct of the simulate(non-plant-walkthrough) portion of theoperating test. The

Intent

Is to permit.under circumstances specified In 10 CFI55.45(b), the use of the plant Itself, and/or a plantieferenced simulator, andlorsome other type of simulation devicesuch as a part-task or basic-principlessimulator, for the conduct of thesimulator portion of the operating test.A number of commenters expressedconcern that a plant, when used as asimulator, could not safely perform thefull range of functions that a simulatorcould perform. and some commentersrequested clarification about thelimitation of the conditions under whichthe plant could be used.It Is not the

Intent

of NRC to permit orencourage the Initiation of translents onthe plant when and if the plant is usedas a simulation facility. The use of theplant Is envisioned as a possibleapproach that a facility licensee mightpropose to use In conjunction withanother simulation device or devices, inlieu of a plant-referenced simulator. Thisapproach might be suitable, for example,for older plants without access to plant-referenced simulators, wheremanipulations of the plant, to the extentconsistent with plant conditions. mightbe used to demonstrate familiarity withthe plant for which the candidate wouldbe licensed.Several commenters suggested thatthe definition of "reference plant"should not be specific to a plant and Itsunit. The word "unit" has been deletedfrom this definition, although it remainsthe NRC's

Intent

that a reference plantrefer to a specific docket number. Forthose situations in which a multiunitplant is composed of units from thesame vendor and vintage, It is likely thatonly one simulation facility would berequired. For others. Regulatory Guide1.149 provides specific guidance forthose facility licensees that want toconsider the use of one simulationfacility for use at more than one nuclearpower plant. This guidance I basedupon existing NRC policy on thegranting of multimnit operator's licenses.(B) Medicolrequirements-1)-Criteria for medical requirements. Mostcommenters agreed with the revisions tothe medical certification process, whichwould require, for the usual case, a briefcertification by the facility licensee onForm NRC-39, as revised. Somecommenters questioned the relationshipof these requirements to drug andalcohol problems and programs. Othercommenters were confused about whowould have responsibility forir determining the medical condition of anoperator or applicant for an operator'slicense. Some comments were madeabout the specific language in themedical requirements regardingdisqualifying conditions andcommenters requested changes orclarification. Many commenters notedthe need to adjust the medicalrequirements to the renewal cycle.The medical requirements reflect theindustry standard articulated In ANSI/ANS 3.-1983. "Medical Certificationand Monitoring of Personnel RequiringOperating Licenses for Nuclear PowerPlants." IThe intent is to prevent themanipulation of the controls by anoperator whose medical condition andgeneral health would cause operationalerrors endangering public health andsafety. The medical requirements relyon examination of the applicant oroperator by a licensed physician whoevaluates the medical conditon of theoperator. based on the criteria of ANSI/ANS 3.-83 that Is endorsed byRegulatory Guide 1.134, "MedicalEvaluation of Licensed Personnel forNuclear Power Plants," and makesrecommendations to the facility'smanagement The facility's managementis responsible for certifying thesuitability of the applicant for a license.The NRC has the responsibility formaking an assessment of the applicantfor a license, Including the applicant'smedical fitness. Neither the facility northe NRC staff will make medicaljudgments. When a conditional licenseIs requested, the NRC will use aqualified medical expert to review themedical evidence submitted by thefacility to make a determination. Forminor conditions, such as the need towear corrective lenses or a hearing aid.the Form NRC 396 Is modified tosimplify the process for obtaining amedically conditioned license.Moreover, while the biennial medicalexamination required under 1 55.21 isintended to detect alcoholism or drugdependency or both, no reference ismade In the rule to alcohol or drugproblems. These issues are covered in aPolicy Statement on Fitness for Duty ofNuclear Power Plant Personnel (51 FR27921). published on August 4.1988, bythe Commission. In addition, the licenserenewal period Is changed to 6 years tobe compatible with the biennial medicalexamination requirements.In jult 1983. KMC. Inc.. petitioned theCommission (PRM-55-1) "to simplify theprocedure for the review of the medicalstatus of applicants for operator-... licenses." KMC stated that thecurrent procedures require that adetailed medical history and results ofthe applicant's medical examination bya licensed physician be sent to theCommission. The petitioner requestedthat the Commission amend itsregulations to permit designated medicalexaminers. as defined in ANSI N546-1976, "Medical Certification andMonitoring of Personnel RequiringOperator Licenses for Nuclear PowerPlants," to certify that the applicant hasi Standards discussed in this rule are availablefor purchase from American Nuclear Society. 555North Kensington Avenue. La Grange Park, IllinoisB-3

.52.N Rul9456' Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 1987 / Rules and Regulationsbeen examined (using the guidancecontained in ANSI N548-1975 asendorsed by Regulatory Guide 1.134)and that the applicant's general healthand physical condition is not such asmay cause operational errors. Under thepetitioner's request the use of thecurrent NRC Form 396 would bediscontinued for utility operators anddetailed medical records would beretained by the licensee's designatedmedical examiner. Subpart C to Part 55responds to the KMC, Inc. petition NRCgrants its request, in part, by eliminatingthe requirement to submit, In usualcases, medical information for anapplicant for an operatlor's licensedirectly to the NRC. Instead, asdescribed above, a certification to NRCabout compliance with the healthrequirements in I 55.33(a](1) would bemade by the facility licensee.(2) Notification of incapacitationbecause of disability or illness. Someconfusion was noted by severalcommenters regarding the process tonotify the Commission when an operatorwas incapacitated because of disabilityor illness. The final rule is changed toreflect more clearly the Commission'sintent. That is, if. during the term of thelicense, an operator's medical conditionchanges and does not meet therequirements set forth in ANSI/ANS3.4-1983, notification of the Commissionby the facility licensee Is required. Atthe same time, if the examiningphysician Indicates that the conditioncan be accommodated as noted in 5.1of the ANSI/ANS 3.4-1983, a conditionallicense may be requested by anauthorized representative of the facilitylicensee. Form NRC 395 must be usedand supporting medical evidence mustbe supplied. However, the facilitylicensee does not have to wait forpermission from the Commission beforereturning an operator to licensed duties,if the operator has been examined by aphysician. who. using ANSI/ANS 34-1983 as a basis, has recommended to thefacility's management that the operatorcan return.(3) Test and research reactors. Manytest and research reactor operators wereconcerned that the requirements In therule changed the medical requirementsfor them. The rule changes only therequirements for test and researchreactor facility licensees. It does notchange the status quo for reactoroperators, for whom ANSI/ANS-15.4-1977(N 380), "Selection and Training ofPersonnel for Research Reactors.'requirements continue.(C) Applications. Applications for anoperator license require the facilitylicensee to certify that there is a needfor the applicant to perform assignedduties. Several commenters wereconcerned that the "need" was notclearly defined. The requirements areIntended to simply have the facilitylicensee's management internally reviewthe need for the license before theapplication is made. Another concern ofmany commenters was the relationshipbetween industry-accredited trainingprograms and the details regardingtraining and experience needed to applyto the NRC on Form NRC-39aL Inaddition, some commenters wereconcerned with the definition of thephrase "learned to operate." This phrasehas been deleted from 5 55.31 andreplaced by wording which indicatesthat if a candidate successfullycompletes the training and experiencerequirements to be licensed as anoperator, the NRC will conduct theappropriate examination and operatingtest Section 55.31(a)(5) has been addedto specify the minimum number ofcontrol manipulations to be conductedby an applicant. Details regarding othertraining and qualification will not berequired to be supplied on Form NRC-398, if these requirements are containedin an NRC-approved training programthat uses a simulation facilityacceptable to the NRC under I 55.45(b).Subject to continued Commissionendorsement of the Industry'saccreditation process under the FinalPolicy Statement on Training andQualification of Nuclear Power PlantPersonnel (50 FR 11147; March 20. 1985),a facility licensee's training programwould be approved by being accreditedby the National Nuclear AccreditingBoard.(D) Written examinations andoperating tests-(1) Content. Mostcommenters recommended that theprincipal means of determining theknowledge, skills, and abilities to beincluded in operator licensing writtenexaminations and operating tests shouldbe the learning objectives derived froma systematic analysis of the Jobperformance requirements. Thesecommenters recommended that theselearning objectives form the basis andscope of examinations and tests andthat other sources of information shouldonly be used until the learningobjectives are available for a facility.Conversely. some commentersquestioned as premature theendorsement by NRC of a systematicanalysis from which to draw the contentfor licensing examinations and tests.One commenter recommended that NRCissue a document that specificallydelineates what an operator Isresponsible for on NRC examinationsand operating tests.Systematic analysis of jobperformance requirements is anaccepted methodology for derivinglicensing examination content; The job-task analyses are being performed aspart of the performance-based programsthat are being implemented by facilitylicensees as part of the Industrysupported-accreditation program. Thelearning objectives derived from thesejob-task analyses should form the basisfor licensing written examinations andoperating tests at a facility. Ultimately.the NRC testing objectives will reflectfacility licensee-developed learningobjectives. In the interim while theseprograms are being developed andreviewed for accreditation. the NRC hasactivities underway to improve thecontent validity of NRC examinationsand operating tests.(2) Specific wording of cotegories.Many commenters made specificwording recommendations for thecategories listed under content of thewritten examinations and operating test.These suggestions were reviewed bysubject-matter experts and changeswere made to clarify or improve thecontent categories. No major changesresulted except to two categories underthe operating test. Under 5 55.45.categories (12) and (13) were rewordedas follows:(121 Demonstrate the knowledge and abilityas appropriate to the assigned position toassume that responsibilities associated withthe safe operation of the facility.(13) Demonstrate the applicant's ability tofunction within the control room team asappropriate to the assigned position, in such away that the facility licensee's procedures areadhered to and that the limitations In itslicense and amendments are not violated.(3) Waivers. Several commenterssuggested that examinations and testsbe automatically waived under specificcircumstances. As the agencyresponsible for public health and safetywith regard to nuclear facilities. theCommission cannot waive Itsindependent assessment of operators.Waivers are based on operatorspreviously passing all or part of alicensing examination. Details regardingthe processing of waivers are addressedin NUREG-1021. "Operator LicensingExaminer Standards." 2'NUREG-sertes documents am available forpublic Inspection and copyinS for a le In theCommlslton's Public Document Room at 1717 HContlwedB-4 Federal Register / Vof'..vd No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 1987\1....dules and Regulations 95945(4)integrity and examinations andtests. Although many commenterssupported the addition of t 55.49,"Integrity of Examinations and Tests,"they felt that the penalties In 1 55.71were excessive. Other commenters wereafraid that any action might beinterpreted as cheating and that the roleof facility licensees In enforcement wasunclear. The NRC always hasprosecutorial discretion not to takeenforcement action in unclear cases.The language in 1 55.71 on criminalviolations only covers persons who"willfully violate" the Atomic EnergyAct or the NRC's regulations and doesno aply to situations such asiscussions after an examination Isadministered or when a previouslyadministered examination Is used as apractice examination.I(E) Simulation focilities-(1)Application process. Many commenterswere concerned with what they termedthe burdensome procedure requiringinitial and subsequent application forapproval to use a simulation facility.Most of these commenters felt thatcertification by the facility licensee totheNRC that the simulation facility metIndustry standards should suffice, whencombined with the NRC's ability toaudit the simulation facility and reviewthe supporting documentation.The Commission has amended thefinal rule to reflect the position taken inthese comments. Any facility licenseethat proposes to use a simulation facilitythat meets the definition of a plant-referenced simulator (essentially asimulator that meets the requirements ofANS-3.5. 1985, "Nuclear Power PlantSimulators for Use In OperatorTraining," as modified by RegulatoryGuide 1.149) will be required only tocertify this to the Commission, and tomaintain records pertaining toperformance testing results forCommission review or audit. Anyfacility licensee that proposes to use asimulation facility that is other than aplan-referenced simulator will berequired to submit a plan detailing howthe requirements of 1 55.45 will be met,on the alternative device or devices.followed by an application for NRCapproval for use of the simulationfacility. However, in response to thenumerous comments received, thisapplication process has been greatlysimplified. and the requirement for aStreet NW.. Washington. DC These documents maybe purchased from the U.S. Government PrintingOffice (GPO) by calling 202-27-20W0 or by writingthe GPO. P.O. Box 37062 Washington. DC 2013-706Z. They may also be purchased rrom the NationalTechnical Information Service, U.S. Department ofCommerce. 5255 Port Royal Road. Springfield. VA22161.periodic "subsequent" application hasbeen eliminated. In support of itscertification or its application, asappropriate, each facility licensee willbe required to conduct periodicperformance tests on its simulationfacility, and maintain records pertainingto the conduct of these tests and theresults obtained.It Is the Commission's intent thatthose facility licensees that submit acertification for a simulation facilitymay Immediately begin use of thecertified simulation facility for theconduct of operating tests at thereference plant.(2) Performance testing. Manycomments addressed the requirementfor the conduct of a series ofperformance tests, in which anextensive range of tests would beconducted over a 4-year cycle, 25percent per year. The industry standardwhich was in effect at the time of theproposed rulemaking. ANSI/ANS 3.-1981 required complete simulatorperformance testing every four years,and R.G. 1.149 endorsed thatrequirement. In addition, the R.G.specified that all malfunctions which asimulation facility was capable ofperforming should be tested to theextent that such malfunctions could beused in the conduct of operating tests.The majority of commenters felt that theburden of conducting these tests woulddemand an excessive amount of time onthe part of the simulation facility as wellas the facility licensee's staff. Numeroussuggestions were made proposing listsof performance tests thought to beappropriate, suggesting alternativeformulas for the cycle of performancetesting. or offering suggestions that therule merely endorse a new version of theindustry standard which was inpreparation at the time.A new version of the standard,identified as ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985, waspublished after the expiration of thepublic comment period. In response tothe comments received and to the newlyIssued industry standard, R.G. 1.149 hasbeen changed to endorse the newstandard, with exceptions, and toInclude in its endorsement the specific,limited list of malfunction performancetests contained In the standard.However, although the new standardcontinues to require the conduct ofsimulator performance tests, it hasdeleted the requirement that these testsbe conducted on a four-year cycle forthe life of the simulator. Instead it hassubstituted an annual operability test,and now.required that performance testsbe conducted only upon completion ofinitial simulator construction and In theevent that simulator design changesresult in significant simulatorconfiguration or performance variations.In addition, the standard is silent onthe subject of periodic testing ofmalfunctions. The NRC endorsement ofthe standard in the R.G. takes exceptionto the deletion of periodic performancetesting. The regulations will requireperformance testing to be conductedthroughout the life of a simulationfacility, on a four-year cycle, at the rateof approximately 25 percent per year.The protection of public health andsafety requires that licensed operatorsnot only be proficient in generaloperations but be able to safely copewith plant transients and malfunctions.Thus a reactor operator licensecandidate's response to malfunctionsduring an operating test is an importantfactor in the examiner's assessment ofthat candidate's performance. It Is alsonecessary to avoid misleading ornegative training, which could resultfrom the use of a simulation facilitywhich does not correctly portray plantresponse to malfunctions. Therefore theability of a simulation facility tofaithfully portray plant malfunctions aswell as general operability is to beverified by periodic performance testing.Such testing provides assurance that thesimulation facility remains acceptableover time and continues to meet theCommission's regulations. A definitionof performance testing has been addedto I 55.4. and the requirements forperformance testing have been clarifiedin the applicable paragraphs of* 55.45(b), as they apply to allsimulation facilities, whether certified orapproved.(3) Schedule. A number of commentsincluded criticism of the time schedulesspecified as being unreasonably shortfor submitting a simulation facility planand for having a simulation facility infull compliance with the regulation.The regulation has been changed toallow 1 year (versus 120 days) for afacility licensee to submit a plandetailing its approach to the simulationfacility requirement; and to allow 4years (versus 3) for its simulationfacility to be in full compliance with theregulation. Those facility licensees thatcertify the use of a plant-referencedsimulator will not have to submit a plan.(4) Penalty for unavailability ofsimulation facility. Several commentsexpressed concern that the penalty wastoo harsh for the unavailability of asimulation facility acceptable to theCommission.It is the Commission's intent thatevery facility licensee have available asimulation facility that meets theB-5 9450 Federal Register / V!,,2. No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25. 1981 jRules and Regulations _Commission's requirements within areasonable period of time after theeffective date of the rule, and that, onceavailable, the simulation facility bemaintained and upgraded, as needed, tocontinue its acceptability for theconduct of operating tests. TheCommission recognizes that uniquecircumstances may arise on a plant-specific basis that cause some deviationfrom the time requirements establishedin the rule and that, from time-to-time, apreviously certified or approvedsimulation facility may becometemporarily unacceptable for theconduct of operating tests. It is theCommission's intent to address any suchsituations on a case-by-case basis.(5) Lack of guidance for assessment.A number of comments expressedconcern that the guidance to be used bythe Commission in Its assessment ofsimulation facility adequacy was not yetavailable. It is the Commission's

Intent

that no simulation facility audits will beconducted until this guidance has beenfully developed and made publiclyavailable for a minimum of 8 months.(6) Applicability to future facilitylicensees. Several commentersquestioned whether the Commission'sregulations regarding simulationfacilities were intended to apply tofuture facility licensees.It is the Commission's intent thatthese regulations apply to future facilitylicensees as well as current facilitylicensees.(7) Test and research reactoroperators. Several test and researchreactor operators were concerned thatthe requirements in the rule changed thelicensing process for them. As statedabove, the rule does not change thestatus quo for this category of operator.The definition of 'simulation facility" in1 5S4 allows the plant to be used tomeet the requirements of I 55.45(b). Inaddition, specific wording in I 55.45(b)permits test and research reactor facilitylicensees to be exempted fromsubmitting a plan for the use of asimulation facility that is other than aplant-referenced simulator.(F) Licenses-(I) Special senioroperator licenses Many commentersquestioned the Issuance of specialsenior licenses. Several argued thatcurrent instructor certificationrequirements were sufficient, othersIndicated that industry-accreditedprograms include Instructor evaluation.and others cited the Commission'sPolicy Statement on Training andQualifications of Nuclear Power PlantPersonnel as conflictfig with theselicenses.The Commission has deleted theprovision for the issuance of specialsenior operator licenses from the finalrule. This action Is in recognition of theindustry accreditation of trainingprograms, which Includes instructortraining, qualification and evaluation,and is in keeping with the intent of theCommission Policy Statement onTraining and Qualifications of NuclearPower Plant Personnel. Industry effortsin implementing instructor training.qualification and evaluation programswill be monitored as described by thePolicy Statement. Moreover, senioroperator licenses limited to fuelhandling will continue to be issued asthey are currently. However. sinceindustry accreditation includesinstructor evaluation, current NRCinstructor certification will not continueat facilities with industry accreditation.A great number of commenters hadspecific suggestions regarding therequirements for special senioroperators. These comments are nolonger applicable since the Commissionhas deleted these licenses from the finalrule.(2) "Actively performing the functionsof on operator or senior operator."Although only one commenterspecifically questioned the definition of"actively performing the [functions] of,"a great many commenters questionedthis phrase in regard to R.G. 1.8Personnel Qualifications and Trainingfor Nuclear Power Plants," as It waspublished for public comment inconjunction with the proposed rule.From the comments made in response tothe regulatory guide and othercomments made regarding the provisionin the rule under "Requalificaton.which required that an operator orsenior operator be 'actively andextensively engaged" as an operator orsenior operator, It is clear that manycommenters were confused about thedegree of participation in plantoperations that is required as acondition to maintain an operatoris orsenior operator's license. To preventfurther confusion, the rule has beenmodified In I 554, "Definitlons," toprovide the following definitionActively performing the functions of aaoperator or senior operator means that an:Individual has a position on the shift crewthat requires the individual to be licensed asdefined in the facility's technicalspecifications, and that the Individual carriesout and is responsible for the duties coveredby that positionIn addition. several commenters wereconcerned that the requirements wereunclear regarding the return to."actve"status following a period du whichalicensee has not been "activelcperforming the functions of an operatoror senior operator" for a period of 4months or longer. Therefore, thes -following requirements have beenadded;If an operator has not performed licensedduties on a minimum of seven 8-hour shifts 6rfive 12-hour shifts per quarter, beforeresumption of activities authorized by alicense issued under these regulations. an -authorized representative of the facility-licensee shall certify that the qualificationsand status of the licensee are current andvalid. and that the licensee has completed aminimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of shift functions underthe direction of the operator or senioroperator, as appropriate, and In the positionto which the Individual licenses will beassigned. Por licenses limited to fuelhandling, one supervised shift is sumclent:Certification shall be maintained at thefacility.The revision In the wording of the rulewas made so that it is no longeernecessary to Include the wording"actively and extensively engagedunder requaliflcatibn. A licensee cannow maintian licensed status bysuccessfully completing the facilty-licensees NRC-approved requalificationprogram and passing the requalificatonexaminations and operating tests.However to return to activeperformance after a period ofmnotparticipating on shift, the conditions of alicense in 55 53(be must be met In thismanner, a licensee without currente.knowledge of the facility would not beable to perform shift cuties.For test and research reactor therequirement for "actively perfdomingthe functions of an operator or senioroperator" would be met with a mniimuomof four hours per calender quarter.Similarly under i 55.53(I a minimum oIfnsih hours parallel workd would berequired to return to active status.(3) Notification af the Commission.Some comnmenters noted that theCommission had no need to know aboutthe criminal conviction of a licensee.However. 155.53(g) is Intended to covercriminal behavior. NRC Ii interested infelonious criminal convictions of alicenses. The NRC considers that theremay be a relationship betweenconviction for a felony and job -perfornance.(G) &piradtion. Currently, licensesexpire after two years To lessen the,paperwork burdens of facility licenseesand the NRC. a five year expiration wasproposed. Many commentes suggestedNthat the proposed five year expirationand renewal of licenses be adjusted tomeet the biennial medical examinationrequirements. The renewal cycle hasbeen changed and licenses will now.expire after a years(H) JRequaification and renewoall)Requalification pMgram andB-6 Federal Rtegister l Vol. 62, No. r7 / Wednesday, March 25, 1987 / Rules and Regulations8459examination content A great manycommenters were unclear about therelationship of the NRC requalificationrequirements and performance-basedtraining programs. Moreover, manycommenters urged more flexibility in therequalification cycle and more clarity inthe-program content requirements.Although the requirement for NRCapproval of requalification programswill reain the list of content areasunder i 155A1, 55.43 and 55.45 will bereferenced in 1 55.59 to clarify the issueof examination and operating testcontent In addition. I 55.59(c) contentrequirements (formerly Appendix A to10 CFR Part 55) can be met with aperformance-based program-for afacility as Approved by the NRC. In itsFinal Policy Statement on Training andQualification of Nuclear Power PlantPTersonniL the Commission endorsedindustry-accredited programs asperformance based. The frequency ofthe comprehensive requalificationwritten examination has been changedto a rbaximum of every Z years and ofthe requalification operating test to oncea year. The requalification program mustbe conducted for a continuous periodnot to exceed 24 months. The specificcycle ill be approved by the NRC asfeach: faclitytraining program.-(2) zActively and extensivelyueWged."A explained above, many-comnenters where concerned with theImplementation of the provision for"actively and extensively engaged as anoperator or senior operator" as It relatedto renewaal.This provision Is deleted inthe final ule. This action complementsthe additions J 55.53 (e) and () to.'Conditions of Ucenses."(3) Test and research reactors.Severalcommenters were concernedthat the requalification requirements foroperators at this class of reactor werechanged. The requirements inI 55.59(c)(7) continue the requirementsof former Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 55for test and research reactors. No changeIn requirements is intended. -(4) NRC administration ofrequolificotion examinotions. Somecommenters questioned the NRC-administratlon of requalificationexaminations. The Commission believesthat an NRC administered examinationfor license renewal provides assurancethat an operator or senior operator canoperate the controls In a safe andcompetent manner and that a senioroperator can direct the activities ofother licensed operators In a safe andcompetent manner. The Commissionalso believes that NRC administeredexaminations provide assurance that-facility licensee administeredrequarification programs aresuccessfully maintaining the proficiencyand knowledge of licensed personnel.To this end, the rule requires in 1 55.57that each applicant for renewal of a six-year license pass an NRC administeredcomprehensive requalification writtenexamination and operating test at leastonce during each six-year license. TheNRC will administer theserequalification written examinationsand operating tests on a random basisso that no operator or senior operatorwill go longer than six years withoutbeing examined by the NRC once a six-year license Is Issued.(1) Modification and revocation oflicenses. Some comments were receivedabout the Commission's authority tomodify and revoke licenses. TheCommission has the authority to modify.suspend or revoke a license under theAtomic Energy Act. Moreover, Inherentin'the Commission's authority to modify.suspend, or revoke a license is its abilityto place a licensed operator or senioroperator under probation. If warranted.(Jl Editorial. Many commenters hadnon-substantive editorial changes tosuggest. These comments were reviewedby an NRC technical editor andincorporated as appropriate.(K) Conforming amendments. Aconforming amendment 10 CFR 50.74.requires the facility licensee to notifythe Commission of a change in operatorstatus This amendment complementsI 5.535(g).(L) Revision to 10 CFR 50.54 and 1oCFR 50.34(b)(8J. Revisions have beenmade to s0 CFR 5O.34(b)(8) and 50.54 toreflect the changes made to 10 CFR Part65.Separate Views of CommissionerAsselstineTiis rule Is a good Idea, but it doesnot go far enough. The Commissionshould have required all licensees toobtain plant referenced simulators.There are two reasons for this. First, Ibelieve that section 308 of the NuclearWaste Policy Act of 1982 (Pub. L 97-425) requires it. Second, plant referencedsimulators are an excellent way forreactor operators to practice controlmanipulations for the plant and toactually see how the plant wouldrespond. This Is especially Important intraining the operators to deal withemergency or other situations when theplant is not in its normal state. It is amuch more effective teaching tool forthe operators to actually manipulatecontrols and watch the "plant" respondthan to have them merely memorizeemergency procedures. Further, asimulator which Is referenced to theplant on which the operator will belicensed will be a much more effectivetraining tool than one which Is not.The Commission decided, however,that because there might be specialcircumstances In some cases whichwould weigh against requiring that aparticular utility purchase a simulatorthe Commission would not make It arequirement. This kind of case-specificspecial circumstances is precisely whatour exemption procedures are intendedto handle. If a licensee had appropriatejustification, the Commission couldalways consider whether to grant anexemption to the regulation. Instead. theCommission chose to water down theregulation and require less.Separate Views of CommissionerBernthalI fully support the Commission'sbroad objective that operators bereexamined on a regular basis. But Ibelieve the final rule is too inflexible forgood regulatory and administrativepractice. NRC may indeed need toexamine operators every six years; insome cases, perhaps more often. But if alicensee satisfactorily demonstrates itsability to conduct high quality.performance-based examinations inaccordance with I 55.57(b)(2)(iii), suchlicensee performance may well justifyextension or relaxation of thisrequirement. This approach would havebeen consistent with the Commission'spolicy of rewarding good licenseeperformance and focusing attention andresources on deficient performers. TheCommission thus could have providedIncentive to licensees and flexibility tothe NRC examiner staff, and shouldhave thereby focused NRC's limitedregulatory resources where they aremost urgently needed.I also continue to believe that the timehas come (given the decreased cost andincreased sophistication of thetechnology) for all but a few smallpowerplants to be required to have plantreference simulators for operatortraining. While there may be somespecial cases that would qualify forexemption from such a requirement, onthe basis of geography and/or plantsimilarity, licensees could in thosecircumstances apply for and receive anexemption.111. Regulatory AnalysisThe regulatory analysis describes thevalues (benefits) and impacts (costs) ofimplementing the proposed regulationsand guidance for operator licensing. Theaccuracy of these estimates in theregulatory analysis is limited by the lackof extensive data on humanperformance improvement associatedB-7 9460 Federal Register / v -52, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25. 19RRules and Reizulationslnomml- with an Improved licensing process.Where possible, quantitative measureswere qualitatively compared to relatedinformation from other sources forverification. The full text of theregulatory analysis on theseamendments is available for inspectionin the NRC Public Document Room, 1717H Street NW., Washington. DC. Singlecopies of the analysis may be obtainedfrom Chief. Operator Licensing Branch.telephone: (301) 492-488&IV. Backfit AnalysisThe Commission has determined thatthese rules are in response to section306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of1982 and, therefore, are exempt from thebackfit rule 10 CFR 50.109 (50 FR 38097).V. Regulatory GuidesThree regulatory guides werepublished in draft form for publiccomment in conjunction with theproposed rule. These guides wereintended to provide guidance onacceptable methods of implementing therevisions to the regulations. As a resultof public comment and additional staffreview, these three guides are beingissued in final form:(1) R.G. 1.134. Revision 2. "MedicalEvaluation of Licensed Personnel forNuclear Power Plants."(2) R.G. 1.149, Revision Z. "NuclearPower Plant Simulation Facilities forUse in Operator License Examinations."13) R.G. 1.8 Revision 2,"Qualificationand Training of Personnel for NuclearPower Plants."Copies of these guides may bepurchased from the Government PrintingOffice at the current GPO price.Information on current GPO prices maybe obtained by contacting the,Superintendent of Documents, U.SGovernment Printing Office. Post Offic.-_Box 37082. Washington. DC 20013-7082ftelephone (202) 275-2060 or (202) 275-2171.VL Environmental Impact CategoricalExclusionThe NRC has determined that thisregulation is the type of action describedin categorical exclusion 10 CFR51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither anenvironmental impact statement nor anenvironmental assessment has beenprepared for this regulation.VIL Paperwork Reduction ActStatementThis final rule amends Informationcollection requirements that are subjectto the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Thesepaperwork requirements were approvedby the Office of Management andBudget approval number 3150-018VIII. Regulatory Flexibility CertificationAs required by the RegulatoryFlexibility Act of 1980,5 U.S.C. 0b).the Commission hereby certifies thatthis rule will not have a significanteconomic impact on a substantialnumber of small entities. Theconforming amendment to 10 CFR Part50 and the revision of 10 CFR Part 55affect primarily the companies that ownand operate light-water nuclear powerreactors and the vendors of thosereactors. They also affect individualslicensed as operators at thesecompanies. Neither the companies thatown and operate reactors nor theseindividuals fail within the scope of thedefinition of "small entity" set forth insection 501(b) of the RegulatoryFlexibility Act. NRC's Size Standardsadopted December 9, 1985 (50 FR 50241).or the Small Business Size Standards setout in regulations issued by the SinallBusiness Administration in 13 CFR Part121.Uist of Subjects10 CFA Pait 50Antitrust, Classified information, Fireprevention, Incorporation by reference.Intergovernmental relations. Nuclearpower plants and reactors, Penalty,Radiation protection. Reactor siting..criteria. Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements.10 CFA Part 55Manpower training programs, Nuclearpower plants and reactors. Penalty,Reporting andtrecordkeepingrequirements.For the reasons set out In thepreamble and under the authority of theAtomic Energy Act of 1954., as amended.the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974;as amended, the Nuclear Waste PolicyAct of 1982. and 5 U.SC. 553. the NRC Isadopting the following amendments to10 CFR Part 55 and 10 CFR Part 50.1. 10 CFR Part 55 Is revised to read asfollows:PART 55-OPERATORS UCENSESSubpart A-General Provisionsse&55.1

Purpose

.55.2 Scope.55.3 License requirements.55.4 Definitions55.5 Communications.53.8 Interpretations.55.7 Additional requirements.55.5 Information collection requirementsoMB approvalSubpart 5-Exemptons55.11 Specific exemptions.55 1l General exemptions.Subpart C-Medical Requirements5521 Medical examination.55.23 Certification.55.25 Incapacitation because of disability orillness.55.27 Documentation.Subpart D-Appflcations5531 How to apply.s5533 Disposition of an initial application55.35 Re-applcatonsSubpart E-WrItten Examinadons andOperatn Test55.41 Written examinationu Operators.55.43 Written examination Senior operators55.45 Operating tests.55.47 Waiver of examination and testrequirements55.49 Integrity of examinations and tests.Subpart P-LJCens55.51 Issuance of licenses.55.53 Conditions of licenses.55.55 Expiration.55.57 Renewal of licenses.55s Requalification.Subpart 0a-odification and Revocation ofUcenses55.81 Modification and revocation of licenses.Subpart H-Eforcement55.7T1 Violations.Authorityr Secs. 107. 181 182. 8 Stat. 939.948 953 as amended. soc. 234.83 Stat. 444, asamended (42 USC. 2137. Z1. 2232. 2282)secs. 201. as amended. 202 88 Stat. 1242. asamended 12441(4 USC. 5841. S842).Sections 55.41. 543. 55.45 and 5559 alsoIssued under sec. 308 Pub. L 97-425 .9 StaL2282(42 U.SC 20228). Section 55.81 alsoissued under secs. 188.187, 88 Stat. 955(42U.S.C. 2238 2237).For the purposes of sec. 223.88 Stat. 958. asamended (42 U.C. 2273) I 555.3 55.21.55.49and 55.53 are Issued under sec. 161i .8 Stat.949. as amended (42 U.S.C. 220(l)k and115523. 55.25 and 55.53(f) are Issued undersec. l~o. 88 Stat 954 as amended (42 USC2201(o)).Subpart A-General Provisitons155.1

Purpose

.The regulations In this part(a) Establish procedures and criteriafor the issuance of licenses to operatorsand senior operators of utilizationfacilities licensed pursuant to theAtomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended.or section 202 of the EnergyReorganization Act of 1974. as amended,and Part 50 of this chapter.(b) Provide for the terms andconditions upon which the Commissionwill issue or modify these licenses, and(c) Provide for the terms and.conditions to maintain and renew theselicenses.B-8 wFederal Register J Vol iAo. 57 / Wednesday, March 25. 1987 k..Ies and Regulations94619 -=flu 6 pThe regulations In this part apply to-(a) Any individual who manipulates thecontrols of any utilization facilitylicensed pursuant to Part S0 of thischapter, andIb) Any Individual designated by efacility licensee to be responsible fordirecting any licensed activity of.licensed operator.I 65.3 Lens rqulremnerftA person must be authorized by alicense issued by the Commission toperform the function of an operator or asenior operator as defined In this parAs used In this part'Act' means the Atomic Energy Actof M.54. Including any amendments tothe Act."Actively performing the functions ofan operator or senior operator" meansthat an Individual has a position on theshift crew that requires the Individual tobe licensed as defined In the facility'stechnical specifications. and that theIndividual carries out and is responsiblefor the duties covered by that position."Commisslon" means the NuclearRegulatory Commission or Its dulyauthorized representatives."Controls" when used with respect toa nuclear reactor means apparatus andmechanisms the manipulation of whichdirectly affects the reactivity or powerlevel of the reactor."Facility" means any utilizationfacility as defined In Part 50 of thischapter. In cases for which a license IsIssued for operation of two or morefacilities. 'facility" means all facilitiesIdentified In the license.Facility licensee" means an applicantfor or holder of a license for a facility."Licensee" means an Individuallicensed operator or senior operator."Operator' means any Individuallicensed under this part to manipulate acontrol of .facility.'Performance testing" means testingconducted to verify a simulationfacility's performance as compared toactual or predicted reference plantperformance."Physician" means an Individuallicensed by a State or territory of theUnited States, the District of Columbiaor the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico todispense drugs In the practice ofmedicine."Plant-referenced simulator" means asimulator modeling the systems of thereference plant with which the operatorinterfaces In the control room. includingoperating consoles. and which permitsuse of the reference plant's procedures.A plant-referenced simulatordemonstrates expected plant responseto operator input, and to normal,transient and accident conditions towhich the simulator has been designedto respond."Reference plant" means the specificnuclear power plant from which asimulation facility's control roomconfiguration. system controlarrangement. and design data arederived.'Senior operator" means atiyindividual licensed under this part to.manipulate the controls of a facility andto direct the licensed activities oflicensed operators."Simulation facility" means one ormore of the following components. aloneor In combination, used for the partialconduct of operating tests for operatorssenior operators. and candidates:(1) The plant.(2) A plant-referenced simulator,(3) Another simulation device."Systems approach to training" meansa training program that includes thefollowing five elements:(1) Systematic analysis of the Jobs tobe performed.12) Learning objectives derived fromthe analysis which describe desiredperformance after training.(3) Training design andimplementation based on the learningobjectives.(4) Evaluation of trainee mastery ofthe objectives during training.,(5) Evaluation and revision of thetraining based on the performance oftrained personnel In the job setting."United States," when used In ageographical sense, Includes Puerto Ricoand all territories and possessions of theUnited States.I 5.5. Communications.(a) Except as provided under aregional licensing program Identified Inparagraph (b) of this section. an.applicant or licensee or facility licenseeshall submit any communication orreport concerning the regulations In thispart and shall submit any applicationfiled under these regulations to theCommission as follows:(1) By mail addressed to-Director ofNuclear Reactor Regulation. U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington. DC 20555. or(2) By delivery in person to theCommission offices at-(i) 1717 H StreetNW.. Washington. DC or (ii) 7920 ;.Norfolk Avenue. Bethesda. Maryland.(b)l() The Director of Nuclear ReactorRegulation has delegated to the RegionalAdministrators of Regions l. II11 ll, IV.and V authority and responsibilitypursuant to the regulations In this partfor the Issuance and renewal of licensesfor operators and senior operators ofnuclear reactors licensed under 10 CFRPart 50 and located In these regions.(2) Any application for a license orlicense renewal filed under theregulations In this part involving anuclear reactor licensed under 10 CFRPart t0 and any related Inquiry.communication. Information, or reportmust be submitted by mail ar in personto the Regional Administrator. TheRegional Administrator or the -Administrator's designee will transmitto the Director of Nuclear ReactorRegulation any matter that Is not withinthe scope of the RegionalAdministrator's delegated authority.(i) If the nuclear reactor Is located InRegion 1. submission must be made tothe Regional Administrator, Region IUS. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,631 Park Avenue, King of Prussia.Pennsylvania 19406.(ii) If the nuclear reactor Is located InRegion II. submission must be made tothe Regional Administrator, Region II,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.101 Marietta Street. Suite 2900. Atlanta.Georgia 30303.(iii) If the nuclear reactor Is located inRegion Ill. submission must be made tothe Regional Administrator, Region Ill,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,799 Roosevelt Road. Glen Ellyn. Illinois50137.(iv) If the nuclear reactor is located InRegion IV. submission must be made tothe Regional Administrator, Region IV.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000.Arlington. Texas 76011.(v) If the nucear reactor is located inRegion V, submission must be made tothe Regional Administrator. Region V.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.1450 Maria Lane, Suite 210. WalnutCreek. California 94596.I55.6 Interpretations.Except as specifically authorized bythe Commission In writing, noInterpretation of the meaning of theregulations In this part by any officer oremployee of the Commission other thana written interpretation by the GeneralCounsel will be recognized to be bindingupon the Commission.I 65.7 Addtitonal requirements.The Commission may. by rule.regulation, or order, impose upon anylicensee such requirements. In additionto those established in the regulations inthis part, as It deems appropriate ornecessary to protect health and tominimize danger to life or properly.B-9 9462 Federal Register / ~o52, No. 57 / Wednesday. March 25, 19 Rulei and Regulations1 55.8 Information coitectionrequirements: oMB approvaL(a) The Nuclear RegulatoryCommission has submitted theInformation collection requirementscontained in this part to the Office ofManagement and Budget (OMB) forapproval as required by the PaperworkReduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.). OMB has approved theinformation collection requirementscontained in this part under controlnumber 3150-OM&(b) The approved informationcollection requirements contained in thispart appear in J1 55.45, 55.53 and155.59.(c) This part contains informationcollection requirements in addition tothose approved under the controlnumber specified in paragraph (a) of thissection. These information collectionrequirements and the control numbersunder which they are approved are asfollows:(1) In 11 55.23. 55.25, 55.27, 55.31. FormNRC-393 Is approved under controlnumber 3150-0024.(2) In HI 55.31. 55.35. 55.47, and 55.57,Form NRC-398 is approved undercontrol number 31504-090.(3) In 1 55.45. Form NRC-474 isoauproved under control number 3150-0138Subpart B-Exemptions155.11 Specifl exemptions.The Commission may. uponapplication by an interested person, orupon its own initiative, grant suchexemptions from the requirements of theregulations in this part as it determinesare authorized by law and will notendanger life or property and areotherwise in the public Interest.155.13 General exemptionsThe regulations in this part do notrequire a license for an Individualwho-(a) Under the direction and in thepresence of a licensed operator or senioroperator, manipulates the controls of-(1) A research or training reactor aspart of the individual's training as astudent, or(2) A facility as a part of theindividuals training In a facilitylicensee's training program as approvedby the Commission to qualify for anoperator license under this part.(b) Under the direction and In thepresence of a licensed senior operator.manipulates the controls of a facility toload or unload the fuel into, out of, orwithin the reactor vessel.Subpart C-Medlcal Requirements1 55.21 Medical examination.An applicant for a license shall have amedical examination by a physician. Alicensee shall have a medicalexamination by a physician every twoyears. The physician shall determinethat the applicant or licensee meets therequirements of I 55.33(a)(1).155.23 Certification.To certify the medical fitness of theapplicant, an authorized representativeof the facility licensee shall completeand sign Form NRC-390, "Certificationof Medical Examination by FacilityLicensee," available from PublicationServices Section, DocumentManagement Branch, Division ofTechnical Information and DocumentControl. U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. Washington. DC 20555.(a) Form NRC-398 must certify that aphysician has conducted the medicalexamination of the applicant as requiredin 1 55.21.(b) When the certification requests aconditional license based on medicalevidence, the medical evidence must besubmitted on NRC Form 398 to theCommission and the Commission thenmakes a determination in accordancewith I 55WI SS25 Incapacitation because ofdisability or InessIf. during the term of the license, thelicensee develops a physical or mentalcondition that causes the licensee to failto meet the requirements of 1 5521 ofthis part, the facility licensee shall notifythe Commission within 30 days oflearning of the diagnosis. For conditionsfor which a conditional license (asdescribing in I 55.33(b) of this part) Isrequested, the facility licensee shallprovide medical certification on FormNRC 396 to the Commission (asdescribed in i 55.23 of this part).155.27 Documentation.The facility licensee shall documentand maintain the results of medicalqualifications data, test results, andeach operator's or senior operator'smedical history for the current licenseperiod and provide the documentationto the Commission upon request. Thefacility licensee shall retain thisdocumentation while an individualperforms the functions of an operator orsenior operator.Subpart D-ApplIcations15S.31 How to apply.(a) The applicant shalk(1) Complete Form NRC-398,"Personal Qualification Statement-Licensee," available from PublicationServices Section. DocumentManagement Branch, Division ofTechnical Information and DocumentControl. U.S. Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Washington. DC 20555;(2) File an original and two copies ofForm NRC-g39a, together with theinformation required In paragraphs(a)(3). (4). (5) and (6) of this section. withthe appropriate Regional Administrator,(3) Submit a written request from anauthorized representative of the facilitylicensee by which the applicant will beemployed that the written examinationand operating test be administered tothe applicant;(4) Provide evidence that the applicanthas successfully completed the facilitylicensee's requirements to be licensed asan operator or senior operator and of thefacility licensee's need for an operatoror a senior operator to perform assignedduties. An authorized representative ofthe facility licensee shall certify thisevidence on Form NRC-398. Thiscertification must include details of theapplicant's qualifications, and details oncourses of Instruction administered bythe facility licensee, and describe thenature of the training received at thefacility, and the startup and shutdownexperience received. In lieu of thesedetails, the Commission may acceptcertification that the applicant hassuccessfully completed a Commission.approved training program that Is basedon a systems approach to training andthat uses a simulation facilityacceptable to the Commission underI 55.45(b) of this part;(5) Provide evidence that theapplicant, as a trainee, has successfullymanipulated the controls of the facilityfor which a license Is sought. At aminimum five significant controlmanipulations must be performed whichaffect reactivity or power leveL For afacility that has not completedpreoperational testing and initial startuptest program as described in its FinalSafety Analysis Report as amended andapproved by the Commission, theCommission may accept evidence ofsatisfactory performance of simulatedcontrol manipulations as part of aCommission-approved training programby a trainee on a simulation facilityacceptable to the Commission underI 55.45(b) of this part For a facilitywhich his (I) completed preoperationaltesting as described in its Final SafetyAnalysis Report, as amended andapproved by the Commission, and Iii) isin an extended shutdown which.precludes manipulation of the control ofthe facility in the control room, theCommission may process theB- 10 Federal Register Vollsa, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25: 1987'Fules and Regulations9463--application and may administer thewritten examination and operating test Crequired by 1 55.41 or 55.43 and 55.45 eof this part. but may not issue the tlicense until the required evidence of dcontrol manipulations Is supplied. For tlicensed operators applying for a senior ioperator license, certification that the Ioperator has successfully operated the Icontrols of the facility as a licensed ioperator shall be accepted; and(6) Provide certification by the facilitylicensee of medical condition andgeneral health on Form NRC-M, tocomply with I s5521.55. and55.33(a~lI(b) The Commission may at any timeafter the application has been filed, andbefore the license has expiredL requirefuther Information under oath oraffirmation in order to enable It todetermine whether to grant or deny the.application or whether to revoke,modify. or suspend the license.J(c) An applicant whose applicationhas been denied because of a medica Icondition or general health may submita further medical report at any time as asupplement to the application.(d) Each application and statemntmust contain complete and accuratedisclosure as to all matters required tobe disclosed. The applicant shall signstatements required by paragraphs (a)(1)and (2) of this section.1 55.33 Disposition of an Ualappication.(a) Requirements for the apprvi'alofon initial application. The Commissionwill approve an Initial application for alicense pursuant to the regulations Inthis part, if It finds that-(1) Health. The applicants medicalcondition and general health will notadversely affect the performance ofassigned operator job duties or causeoperational errors endangering publichealth and safety. The Commission willbase its finding upon the certification bythe facility licensee as detailed in£ 55.23.(2) Witten examination andoperating tesL The applicant has passedthe requisite written examination andoperating test in accordance withIi 55I41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and 5545.These examinations and tests determinewhether the applicant for an operator'slicense has learned to operate d facilitycompetently and safely. and*additionally. in the case of a senioroperator. whether the applicant haslearned to direct the licensed activitiesof licensed operators competently andsafely.(b) Conditional license. If anapplicant's general medical conditiondoes not meet the minimum standardsunder I 55.33(a)(1) of this part theCommission may approve theapplication and include conditions inhe license to accommodate the medicaldefect. The Commission will considerhe recommendations and supportingevidence of the facility licensee and ofthe examining physician (provided onForm NRC-M) in arriving at itsdecision.16555 Re-applIcations.(a) An applicant whose application fora license has been denied because offailure to pass the written examinationor operating test, or both, may file a newapplication two months after the date ofdenial. The application must be -submitted on Form NRC-398 and includea statement signed by an authorizedrepresentative of the facility licensee bywhom the applicant will be employedthat states in detail the extent of theapplicant's additional training since thedenial and certifies that the applicant Isready for re-examination. An applicantmay filed a third application six monthsafter the date of denial of the secondapplication, and may file furthersuccessive applications two years afterthe date of denial of each priorapplication. The applicant shall submiteach successive application on FormNRC-398 and Include a statement ofadditional training.(b) An applicant who has passedeither the written examination oroperating test and failed the other mayrequest In a new application on FormNRC-398 to be excused from re-examination on the portions of theexamination or test which the applicanthas passed. The Commission may In itsdiscretion grant the request. if itdetermines that sufficient justification ispresented.Subpart E-Written Examinations andOperating Tests55541 Written examInatlon Operators.(a) Content. The written examinationfor an operator will contain arepresentative selection of questions onthe knowledge, skills, and abilitiesneeded to perform licensed operatorduties. The knowledge, skills, andabilities will be Identified, in part, fromlearning objectives derived from asystematic analysis of licensed operatorduties performed by each facilitylicensee and contained in its trainingprogram and from information In theFinal Safety Analysis Report, systemdescription manuals and operatingprocedures, facility license and licenseamendments, Licensee Event Reports,and other materials requested from thefacility licensee by the Commission.(b) The written examination for anoperator for a facility will Include arepresentative sample from among thefollowing 14 Items, to the extentapplicable to the facility.(1) Fundamentals of reactor theory,including fission process. neutronmultiplication, source effects, controlrod effects, criticality indications.reactivity coefficients, and poisoneffects.(2) General design features of thecore, including core structure, fuelelements, control rods, coreinstrumentation, and coolant flow.(3) Mechanical components anddesign features of the reactor primarysystem.(4) Seondary coolant and auxiliarysystems that affect the facility.-(5) Facility operating characteristicsduring steady state and transientconditions, including coolant chemistry,causes and effects of temperature.pressure and reactivity changes. effectsof load changes, and operatinglimitations and reasons for theseoperating characteristics.(6) Design, components. and functionsof reactivity control mechanisms andinstrumentation.(7) Design, components, and functionsof control and safety systems. includinginstrumentation, signals, interlocks,failure modes. and automatic andmanual features.(8g Components. capacity. andfunctions of emergency systems.(9) Shielding, isolation, andcontainment design features. includingaccess limitations.(10) Administrative, normal.abnormal. and emergency operatingprocedures for the facility.(11)

Purpose

and operation ofradiation monitoring systems, includingalarms and survey equipment-(12) Radiological safety principles andprocedures.,(13) Procedures and equipmentavailable for handling and disposal ofradioactive materials and effluents.(14) Principles of heat transferthermodynamics and fluid mechanics.55.43 Written examination Senlor,operators.(a) Content. The written examinationfor a senior operator will contain arepresentative selection of questions onthe knowledge. skills. and abilitiesneeded to perform licensed senioroperator duties. The knowledge. skills.and abilities will be identified. In part,from learning objectives'derived from asystematic analysis of licensed senioroperator duties performed by eachfacility licensee and contained in ItsB-1l

'/9464. Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 57 / Wednesday. March 25 1987 / Rules and-RegulatlionsItraining program and from informationIn the Final Safety Analysis Report.sylem description manuals andoperating procedures, facility licenseand license amendments. LicenseeEvent Reports, and other materialsrequested from the facility licensee bythe Commission.(b) The written examination for asenior operator for a facility will includea representative sample from among thefollowing seven items and the 14 itemsspecified in £ 55.41 of this part, to theextent applicable to the facility:(1) Conditions and limitations in thefacility license.(2) Facility operating limitations in thetechnical specifications and their bases.(3) Facility licensee proceduresrequired to obtain authority for designand operating changes in the facility.(4) Radiation hazards that may ariseduring normal and abnormal situations,including maintenance activities andvarious contamination conditions.(5) Assessment of facility conditionsand selection of appropriate proceduresduring nornaL abnormal, andemergency situations.(8) Procedures and limitationsinvolved in initial core loading.alterations In core configuration, controlrod programming, and determination ofvarious internal and external effects oncore reactivity.(7) Fuel handling facilities andprocedures.1 S54S OperatIng teds.(a) Content The operating testsadministered to applicants for operatorand senior operator licenses inaccordance with paragraph (b)(1) of thissection are generally similar in scope.The content will be identified. in part.from learning objectives derived from asystematic analysis of licensed operatoror senior operator duties performed byeach facility licensee and contained inits training program and frominformation in the Final Safety AnalysisReport system description manuals andoperating procedures, facility licenseand license amendments, LicenseeEvent Reports. and other materialsrequested from the facility licensee bythe Commission. The operating test, tothe extent applicable. requires theapplicant to demonstrate anunderstanding of and the ability toperform the actions necessary toaccomplish a representative samplefrom among the following 13 items.(1) Perform pre-startup procedures forthe facility, including operating of thosecontrols associated with plantequipment that could affect reactivity.(2) Manipulate the console controls asrequired to operate the facility betweenshutdown and designated power levels.(3) Identify annunciators andcondition-indicating signals and performappropriate remedial actions whereappropriate.(4) Identify the instrumentationsystems and the significance of facilityinstrument readings.(5) Observe and safely control theoperating behavior characteristics of thefacility.(6) Perform control manipulationsrequired to obtain desired operatingresults during normal, abnormal, andemergency situations.(7) Safely operate the facility's headremoval systems, including primarycoolant, emergency coolant, and decayheat removal systems. and identify therelations of the proper operation ofthese systems to the operation of thefacility.(8) Safely operate the facility'sauxiliary and emergency systems.including operation of those controlsassociated with plant equipment thatcould affect reactivity or the release ofradioactive materials to theenvironment(9) Demonstrate or describe the useand function of the facility's radiationmonitoring systems. InIcuding fixedradiation monitors and alarms, portablesurvey instruments, and personnelmonitoring equipment.(10) Demonstrate knowledge ofsignificant radiation hazards, includingpermissible levels in excess of thoseauthorized, and ability to perform otherprocedures to reduce excessive levels ofradiation and to guard against personnelexposure.(11) Demonstrate knowledge of theemergency plan for the facility,including. as appropriate, the operator'sor senior operator's responsibility todecide whether the plan should beexecuted end the duties under the planassigned.(12) Demonstrate the knowledge andability as appropriate to the assignedposition to assume the responsibilitiesassociated with the safe operation of thefacility,(13) Demonstrate the applicant'sability to function within th6 controlroom team as appropriate to theassigned position. In such c way that thefacility licensee's procedures areadhered to and that the limitations in ltslicense and amendments are notviolated.(b) Implementation-(1)Administration. The operating test willbe administered in a plant walkthroughand in either-(i) A simulation facility which theCommission has approved for use afterapplication has been made by thefacility licensee, or(ii) A simulation facility consistingsolely of a plant-referenced simultatorwhich has been certified to theCommission by the facility licensee.(2) Schedule for facility licensees. (i)Within one year after the effective dateof this part, each facility licensee whichproposes to use a simulation facilitypursuant to paragraph (bXl)(i) of thissection, except test and researchreactors, shall submit a plan by whichIts simulation facility will be developedand by which an application will besubmitted for its use.(ii) Those facility licensees whichpropose to conform with paragraph(b)(1)(i) of this section, not later than 42months after the effective date of thisrule, shall submit an application for useof this simulation facility to theCommission. in accordance withparagraph (b)(4)(i) of this section.(ill) Those facility licensees whichpropose to conform with paragraph(b)(1)(ii) of this section, not later than 4Bmonths after the effective date of thisrule, shall submit a certification for useof this simulation facility to theCommission on Form NRC-474."Simulation Facility Certification,"available from Publication ServicesSection. Document Management Branch,Division of Technical Information andDocument ControL U.S NuclearRegulatory Commission. Washington.DC 2055, in accordance with paragraph(b)(5)(1) of this section.(iv) The simulation facility portion ofthe operating test will not beadministered on other than a certified oran approved simulation facility afterMay 28 1991.(3) Scheduleforfacility applicants. (I)For facility licensee applications afterthe effective date of this rule, except testand research reactors, the applicantshall submit a plan which Identifieswhether Its simulation facility willconform with paragraph (b~l)(1) or(b)(1)(iI) of this section at the time ofapplication.* (ii) Those applicants which propose toconform with paragraph (b(1)(1) of thissection, not later than 180 days beforethe date when the applicant proposesthat the Commission conduct operatingtests. shall submit an application for useof its simulation facility to the NRC Inaccordance with paragraph (b)(4)(i) ofthis section.piii) Those applicants which proposeto conform with paragraph (b)(l)(ii) ofthis section. not later than 60 daysbefore the date when the applicantB- 12 F/1)Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 1987 r4ules and Regulations9465proposes that NRC conduct operatingtests, shall submit a certification for useof its simulation facility to theCommission on Form NRC-474. inaccordance with paragraph (b)(5)(i) ofthis section.(4) Application for and approval ofsimulotion facilities. Those facilitylicensees which propose, In accordancewith paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section,to use a simulation facility that is otherthan solely a plant-referenced simulatoras defined in I 55.4 shall-(i In accordance with the plan.submitted pursuant to paragraph(b)(2)(i) or [b)(3)(i) of this section, aSapplicable submit an application for -approval of the simulation facility to theCommission, in accordance with theschedule in paragraph (b)(2)(Ki) or(b)(3)(11) of this section. as appropriate.This application must include :.(A) A statement that the simulationfacility meets the plan submitted to theCommission pursuant to paragraph(b)(2)(i) or (b)(3)(i) of this section, asapplicable,(B) A description of the components ofthe simulation facility which areintended to be used for each part of theoperating test; and(C) A description of the performancetests as part of the application. and theresults of such tests.(ii) The Commission will approve asimulation facility if it finds that thesimulation facility and Its proposed useare suitable for the conduct of operatingtests for the facility licensee's referenceplant, in accordance with paragraph (a)of this section.(iii) Submit. every four years on theanniversary of the application. a reportto the Commission which Identifies anyuncorrected performance test failures,and submit a schedule for correction ofthese performance test failures, if any.(iv) Retain the results of theperformance test conducted until fouryears after the submittal of theapplication under paragraph (b)(4)(1);each report pursuant to paragraph(b)(4)(iii). or any reapplication underparagraph (b)(4)(iv) of this section. asappropriate.(v) If the Commission determines.based upon the results of performancetesting, that an approved simulationfacility does not meet the requirementsof this part, the simulation facility may'not be used to conduct operating tests.(vi) If the Commlission determines.pursuant to paragraph (b)(4)(v) of thissection. that an approved simulationfacility does not meet the requirementsof this part, the facility licensee mayagain submit an application forapproval. This application must includea description of corrective actions takerincluding results of completedperformance testing as required forapproval;(vi) Any application or reportsubmitted pursuant to paragraphs(b)(4)(i) (b)(4)(iii) and (b)(4)(vi) of thissection must include a description of theperformance testing completed for thesimulation facility, and must include adescription of performance tests, Ifdifferent, to be conducted on thesimulation facility during the subsequentfour-year period, and a schedule for theconduct of approximately 25 percent ofthe performance tests per year for thesubsequent four years.(5)Certification of simulationfacififies-Those facility licenseeswhich propose, in accordance withparagraph (b)(1)(l) of this section. to usea simulation facility consisting solely ofa plant-referenced simulator as definedin 1 55.4. shall-(I) Submit a certification to theCommission that the simulation facilitymeets the Commission's regulations. Thefacility licensee shall provide thiscertification on Form NRC-474 inaccordance with the schedule inparagraph (b)(2)(iil) or (b)(3)(fii) of thissection. as applicable.(ii) Submit, every four years on theanniversary of the certification, a reportto the Commission which Identifies anyuncorrected performance test failures.and submit a schedule for correction ofsuch performance test failures, if any.-(iii) Retain the results of theperformance test conducted until fouryears after the submittal of certificationunder paragraph (b)(5)(i), each reportpursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(ii). orrecertification under paragraph (b)(5)(v)of this section, as applicable.(iv) If the Commission determines.based upon the results of performancetesting, that a certified simulationfacility does not meet the requirementsof this part, the simulation facility maynot be used to conduct operating tests.(v) If the Commission determines,pursuant to paragraph (b)(5)(iv) of thissection. that a certified simulationfacility does not meet the requirementsof this part, the facility licensee maysubmit a recertification to theCommission on Form NRC-474. Thisrecertification must Include adescription of corrective actions taken,including results of completedperformance testing as required forrecertification.(vi) Any certification report. orrecertification submitted pursuant toparagraph (b)(5)(1). (b)(5)(ii) or (b)(5)(v)of this section must include adescription of performance testingcompleted for the simulation facility.:A and must include a description of theperformance tests, if different, to beconducted on the simulation facilityduring the subsequent four-year period.and a schedule for the conduct ofapproximately 25 percent of theperformance tests per year for thesubsequent four years.1 55.47 Walver of examInation and test.requirements.(a) On application, the Commissionmay waive any or all of therequirements for a written examinationand operating test, if it finds'that theapplicant-(1) Has had extensive actual operatingexperience at a comparable facility, asdetermined by the Commission. withintwo years before the date of application;(2) Has discharged his or herresponsibilities competently and safelyand is capable of continuing to do so;and(3) Has learned the operatingprocedures for and is qualified tooperate competently and safely thefacility designated in the application.(b) The Commission may accept asproof of the applicant's pastperformance a certification of anauthorized representative of the facilitylicensee or of a holder of anauthorization by which the applicantwas previously employed. Thecertification must contain a descriptionof the applicant's operating experience.including an approximate number ofhours the applicant operated thecontrols of the facility, the dutiesperformed, and the extent of theapplicant's responsibility.(c) The Commission may accept asproof of the applicant's currentqualifications a certification of an'-authorized representative of the facilitylicensee or of a holder of anauthoriiation where the applicant'sservices will be utilized.:* 55.49 IntegrIty of examinations andtests.Applicants: licensees, and facilitylicensees shall not engage in anyactivity that compromises the integrityof any application, test, or examinationrequired by this part.Subpart F-UcensesI 55.51 Issuance of licenses.Operator and senior operatorlicenses. If the Commission determinesthat an applicant for an operator licenseor a senior operator license meets therequirements of the Act and itsregulations. it will Issue a license in theform and containing any conditions andlimitations it considers appropriate andnecessary.B- 13 9468 Federal Register / Vc No. 57 / Wednesday, March 25, 198&.vRules and Regulations5553 CondItions of lenses.Each license contains and Is subject tothe following conditions whether statedin the license or not:(a) Neither the license nor any rightunder the license may be assigned orotherwise transferred.(b) The license is limited to the facilityfor which It is issued.(c) The license is limited to thosecontrols of the facility specified in thelicense.(d) The license is subject to. and thelicensee shall observe. all applicablerules. regulations, and orders of theCommission.(e) If a licensee has not been activelyperforming the functions of an operatoror senior operator, the licensee may notresume activities authorized by a licenseIssued under this part except aspermitted by paragraph (f) Of thissection. To maintain active status, thelicensee shall actively perform thefunctions of an operator or senioroperator on a minimum of seven 8-houror five 12-hour shifts per calendarquarter. For test and research reactors,the licensee shall actively perform thefunctions of an operator or senioroperator for a minimum of four hoursper calendar quarter.(f) If paragraph (e) of this section Isnot met before resumption of functionsauthorized by a license issued under thispart, an authorized representative of thefacility licensee shall certify thefollowing(1) That the qualifications and statusof the licensee are current and valid;and(2) That the licensee has completed aminimum of 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of shift functionsunder the direction of an operator orsenior operator as appropriate and inthe position to which the individual willbe assigned. The 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> must haveincluded a complete tour of the plantand all required shift turnoverprocedures For senior operators limitedto fuel handling under paragraph (c) ofthis section, one shift must have beencompleted. For test and researchreactors a minimum of six hours musthave been completed.(g) The licensee shall notify theCommission within 30 days about aconviction for a felony.(h) The licensee shall complete arequalification program as described by1fi55.59.(I) The licensee shall have a biennialmedical examination.(j) The licensee shall comply with anyother conditions that the Commissionmay impose to protect health or-tominimize danger to life or property.I 555. Expiration.(a) Each operator license and senioroperator license expires six years afterthe date of issuance, upon terminationof employment with the facility licensee,or upon determination by the facilitylicensee that the licensed individual nolonger needs to maintain a license.(b) If a licensee files an application forrenewal or an upgrade of an existinglicense on Form NRC-398 at least 30days before the expiration of theexisting license, It does not expire untildisposition of the application forrenewal or for an upgraded license hasbeen finally determined by theCommission. Filing by mail or telegramwill be deemed to be complete at thetime the application Is deposited In themail or with a telegraph company.1 55.7 Renewal of licenses.(a) The applicant for renewal of alicense shall-(1) Complete and sign Form NRC-398and include the number of the licensefor which renewal is sought.(2) File an original and two copies ofForm NRC-3 with the appropriateRegional Administrator specified inI 55.5(b).(3) Provide written evidence of theapplicant's experience under theexisting license and the approximatenumber of hours that the licensee hasoperated the facility.(4) Provide a statement by anauthorized representative of the facilitylicensee that during the effective term ofthe current license the applicant hassatisfactorily completed therequalification program for the facilityfor which operator or senior operatorlicense renewal is sought.(5) Provide evidence that the applicanthas discharged the licenseresponsibilities competently and safely.The Commission may accept asevidence of the applicant's having metthis requirement a certificate of anauthorized representative of the facilitylicensee or holder of an authorization bywhich the licensee has been employed.(B) Provide certification by the facilitylicensee of medical condition andgeneral health on Form NRC-39g8 tocomply with 11 55.21. 55.2 and 55.(b) The license will be renewed if theCommission finds that-(1) The medical condition and thegeneral health of the licensee continueto be such as not to cause operationalerrors that endanger public health andsafety. The Commission will base thisfinding upon the certification by thefacility licensee as described In 1 55.23.(2) The licensee-(I) Is capable of continuing tocompetently and safely assume licensedduties;(ii) Has successfully completed arequalification program that has beenapproved by the Commission asrequired by I 55.59; and(iii) Has passed the requalificationexaminations and annual operating testsas required by 1 55.59.(Iv) Has passed a comprehensiverequalification written examination andoperating test administered by theCommission during the term of a six-year license.(3) There Is a continued need for alicensee to operate or for a senioroperator to direct operators at thefacility designated in the application.(4) The past performance of thelicensee has been satisfactory to theCommission. In making its finding, theCommission will Include In itsevaluation information such as noticesof violations or letters of reprimand Inthe licensee's docket.I 55.9 Requaliflcation.(a) Aequolification requirementsEach licensee shall-(1) Successfully complete arequalification program developed bythe facility licensee that has beenapproved by the Commission. Thisprogram shall be conducted for acontinuous period not to exceed 24months in duration.(2) Pas a comprehensiverequalification written examination andan annual operating test.(I) the written examination willsample the Items specified in 1 55.42and 5543 of this part, to the extentapplicable to the facility, the licensee,and any limitation of the license under15553(c) of this part.(11) The operating test will require theoperator or senior operator todemonstrate an understanding of andthe ability to perform the actionsnecessary to accomplish.acomprehensive sample of Itemsspecified In 15545(a) (2) through (23)inclusive to the extent applicable to thefacility.(III) In lieu of the Commissionaccepting a certification by the facilitylicensee that the licensee has passedwritten examinations and operatingtests administered by the facilitylicensee within its Commission.approved program developed by using asystems approach to training underparagraph (c) of this section, theCommission may administer acomprehensive requalllfcation writtenexamination and an annual operatingtesnB- 14

-.-Federal Register N tNo. 67 / Wednesday, March 25. 198Rules and Regulations -9467(b) Additional training. if therequirements of paragraphs (a) (1) and(2) of this section are not met, theCommission may require the licensee tocomplete additional training and tosubmit evidence to the Commission ofsuccessful completion of this trainingbefore returning to licensed duties.(c) Requalification programrequirements. A facility licensee shallhave a requalification program reviewedand approved by the Commission. Therequalification program must meet therequirements of paragraphs (c) t1)through (7) of this section. In lieu ofparagraphs (c) (2). (3), and (4) of thissection. the Commission may approve aprogram developed by using a systemsapproach to training.(l) Schedule. The requalificationprogram mus be conducted for acontinuous period not to exceed twoyears. and upon conclusion must bepromptly followed, pursuant to acontinuous schedule, by successiverequalification programs.(2) Lectures. The requalificationprogram must include preplannedlectures on a regular and continuingbasis throughout the license period inthose areas where operator and senioroperator written examinations andfacility operating experience Indicatethat emphasis in scope and depth ofcoverage is needed in the followingsubjects:(I) Theory and principles of operation.(ii) General and specific plantoperating characteristics.(iii) Plant instrumentation and controlsystems.(iv) Plant protection systems.(v) Engineered safety systems.(vi) Normal. abnormal. and emergencyoperating procedures.(vii) Radiation control and safety.(viii) Technical specifications.(ix) Applicable portions of Title 10.Chapter L Code of FederalRegulations.(3) On-the-job training. Therequalification program must include on-the-pb training so that-.i) Each licensed operator of autilization facility manipulates the plantcontrols and each licensed senioroperator either manipulates the controlsor directs the activities of individualsduring plant control manipulationsduring the term of the licensedoperator's or senior operator's license.For reactor operators and senioroperators. these manipulations mustconsist of the following controlmanipulations and plant evolutions ifthey are applicable to the plant design.Items described in paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(A) through (L) of this section must beeiformed annually; all other items mustbe performed on a two-year cycle.However, the requalification programs <must contain a commitment that eachindividual shall perform or participate ina combination of reactivity controlmanipulations based on the availabilityof plant equipment and systems. Thosecontrol manipulations which are notperformed at the plant may beperformed on

• simulator. The use of theTechnilcal Specifications should bemaximized during the simulator controlmanipulations. Senior operator licenseesare credited with these activities If theydirect control manipulations as they areperformed.(A) Plant or reactor startups to includea range that reactivity feedback fromnuclear heat addition is noticeable andheatup rate is established.(B) Plant shutdown.(C) Manual control of steamgenerators or feedwater or both duringstartup and shutdown.(D) Boration or dilution during poweroperation.(E) Significant (>10 percent) powerchanges in manual rod control orrecirculation flow..(F) Reactor power change of 10percent or greater where load change isperformed with load limit control orwhere flux. temperature. or speedcontrol is on manual (for HTGR).(G) Loss of coolant. including-(1) Significant PWR steam generatorleaks(2) Inside and outside primarycontainment(3) Large and small, including lead-ratedetermination(4) Saturated reactor coolant response(PWR).(H) Loss of instrument air (ifsimulated plant specific).(I) Loss of electrical power (ordegraded power sources).U) Loss of core coolant flow/naturalcirculation.(K) Loss of feedwater (normal andemergency).(L) Loss of service water. If requiredfor safety.-M) Loss of shutdown cooling.(N) Loss of component cooling systemor cooling to an individual component.(0) Loss of normal feedwater or'normal feedwater system failure.(P) Loss of condenser vacuum.(Q) Loss of protective system channel.(R) Mispositioned control rod or rods(or rod drops).(S) Inability to drive control rods.(T) Conditions requiring use ofemergency boration orstandby liquidcontrol system.---(U) Fuel cladding failure or highactivity in reactor coolant or offgas.(V) Turbine or generator trip.(W) Malfunction of an automaticcontrol system that affects reactivity.(X) Malfunction of reactor coolantpressure/volume control system.(Y) Reactor trip.(Z) Main steam line break (inside oroutside containment).(AA) A nuclear instrumentationfailure. l(ii) Each licensed operator and senioroperator has demonstrated satisfactoryunderstanding of the operationof theapparatus and mechanisms associatedwith the control manipulations inparagraph (c)(3)(i) of this section. and-knows the operating procedures In eacharea for which the operator or senioroperator is licensed.(iii) Each licensed operator and senioroperator is cognizant of facility designchanges, procedure changes, and facilitylicense changes.(iv) Each licensed operator and senioroperator reviews the contents of all -abnormal and emergency procedures ona regularly scheduled basis.(v) A simulator may be used inmeeting the requirements of paragraphs(c) (3)(i) and (3)(ii) of this section, if itreproduces the general operating i -characteristics of the facility involvedand the arrangement of the* --instrumentation and controls of thesimulator is similar to that of the facilityinvolved. If the simulator or simulationdevice is used to administer operatingtests for a facility, as provided in 1 55.45(b)(1), the device approved to meet therequirements of I 55.45(b)(l) must beused for credit to be given for meetingthe requirements of paragraphs (c)(3)(i)(G through AA) of this section.(4) Evaluation. The requalificationprogram must include-(i) Comprehensive requalificationwritten examinations and annualoperating tests which determine areas inwhich retraining is needed to upgradelicensed operator and senior operatorknowledge.(ii) Written examinations whichdetermine licensed operators' and senioroperators' knowledge of subjectscovered In the requalification programand provide a basis for evaluating theirknowledge of abnormal and emergencyprocedures. r(iii) Systematic observation andevaluation of the performance andcompetency of licensed operators andsenior operators by supervisors and/ortraining staff members. including .evaluation of actions taken or to betaken during actual or simulatedabnormal and emergency procedures.(iv) Simulation of emergency orabnormal conditions that may beB- 15 9468 Federal Register / Vol_ i, No. 57 1 Wednesday, March 25. 1987Kules and Regulationsaccomplished by using the control panelof the facility involved or by using asimulator. Where the control panel ofthe facility is used for simulation. theactions taken or to be taken for theemergency or abnormal condition shallbe discussed; actual manipulation of theplant controls Is not required. If asimulator is used in meeting therequirements of paragraph (c)f4)tii) ofthis section. it shall accuratelyreproduce the operating characteristicsof the facility involved and thearrangement of the instrumentation andcontrols of the simulator shall closelyparallel that of the facility involved.After the provisions of I 55.45(b) havebeen implemented at a facility, thecertified or approved simulation facilitymust be used to comply with thisparagraph.(v) Provisions for each licensedoperator and senior operator toparticipate in an acceleratedrequalification program whereperformance evaluations conductedpursuant to paragraphs (c)(4) (I) through(iv) of this section clearly indicated theneed.(5) Records. The requalificationprogram documentation must includethe following(1) The facility licensee shall maintainrecords documenting the participation ofeach licensed operator and senior..operator in the requalification program.C records must contain copies ofwritten examinations administered, theanswers given by the licensees and theresults of evaluations anddocumentation of operating tests and ofany additional training administered inareas in which an operator or senioroperator has exhibited deficiencies Thefacility If censee shall retain theserecords until the operators or senioroperator's license is renewed.pi) Each record required by this partmust be legible throughout the retentionperiod specified by each Commissionregulation. The record may be theoriginal or a reproduced copy or amicroform provided that the copy ormicroform is authenticated byauthorized personnel and that themicroform is capable of producing aclear copy throughout the requiredretention period.(iii) If there is a conflict between theCommission's regulations in this partand any license condition. or otherwritten Commission approval orauthorization pertaining to the retentionperiod for the same type of record, theretention period specified for theserecords by the regulations in this partapply unless the Commission. pursuantto 55.11. grants a specific exemptionfrom this record retention requirement(B) Alternative training programs Therequirements of this section may be metby requalification programs conductedby persons other than the facilitylicensee if the requalification programsare similar to the program described inparagraphs (c) (1) through (5) of thissection and the alternative program hasbeen approved by the Commission.(7) Applicability to research and testreactor facilities. To accommodatespecialized modes of operation anddifferences in control, equipment andoperator skills and knowledge, therequalification program for eachlicensed operator and senior operator ofa research reactor or test reactor facilitymust conform generally but need not beIdentical to the requalification programoutlined in paragraphs (c) (1) through (6)of this section. Significant deviationsfrom the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (a) of this section will bepermitted only if supported by writtenJustifiaton and approved by theCommission.Subpart G-Modfitcatlon andRevocation of LicensesI S5.61 Modificaton and revocation oflicensee.(a) The terms and conditions of alllicenses are subject to amendment,revision. or modification by reason ofrules, regulations. or orders Issued inaccordance with the Act or anyamendments thereto.(b) Any license may be revoked,suspended, or modified, In whole or inpart:(1) For any material false statement Inthe application or in any statement offact required under section 182 of theAct,(2) Because of conditions rivealed bythe application or statement of fact orany report, record, inspection or othermeans that would warrant theCommission to refuse to grant a licenseon an original application(3) For willful violation of or failure toobserve any of the terms and conditionsof the Act. or the licene or of any ivjeregulation, o order of the Commission,or(4) For any conduct determined by theCommission to be a hazard to safeoperation of the facility.Subpart H-Enforcement5.71 Vsoatio ns.(a) An iniunction or other court ordermay be obtained prohibiting anyviolation of any provision of:(1) The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, asambnded;(2) Title 1 of the EnergyReorganization Act of 1974. as amended;or(3) Any regulation or order issuedunder these Acts.(b) A court order may be obtained forthe payment of a civil penalty imposedunder section 234 of the Aomic EnergyAct for violation oh(1) Sections 53,57. M 83 81 82 101,103,104,107, or 109 of the AtomicEnergy Act;(2) Section 200 of the EnergyReorganization Act of 1974;(3) Any rule, regulation. or orderissued under these Acts;(4) Any term. condition. or limitationof any license issued under these Acts;or(5) For any violation for which alicense may be revoked under section188 of the Atomic Energy Act* (c) Any person who willfully violatesany provision of the Atomic Energy Adtor any regulation issued under the Actincluding the regulations in this part,may be guilty of a crime and, uponconviction. may be punished by fine orimprisonment, or both, as provided bylaw.PART 60-DMESTIC LICENSING OFPRODUCTION AND UTILIZATIONFACULTIES'1 The authority citation for Part 50continues to read as follows.Authority: Sec. 103, lo4. lt.1, 18Z 5.188.189, 6 Stat 93937. 94, 035. 3 WA5958A asamended, sec. 234 83 Stat 1244. as amended(42 11S.C 2133 2134. 2201. 27 23, 2238.239. 282 secs 201,02208,88 Stat. 1242,1244.14 as amended (42 U.SC. 541584588) unless other noted.Section 50.7 also Issued under Pub. L 95-01, sOc 10, 2 Stat. 2951 (42 U.SC 58.flSections 558.5 MM, and 50.92 also Issuedunder Pub. L 97-415 96 StaL M0n. 2073 (42U.SC. 2133,2239 SectIou 5076 also Issuedunder sen. 1 8 Stat. 9 (42 U.SC 2152)Sections 50.R-8 also itud under e.18 68 Stat. 954 as amended (42 U.SC. 2Z3)Sections 50.100-5102 also Issued under semh186 0Stat 95( 42 U.S. 2236)For the pu s of sec. 2 3 StaL 95,asamended (42 U..C. 2273, i1 50.10 (at (b).and (), 544.50AS.0A, 50.M4, and Won)are ied under se. isib. 68 Stat. 94 uamended (42 U.C Z20(bfNl §15 o(b) and(c) and 50.4 are Issued under sea. as11,66Stat. 949, as amended (42 USC 220(p1); andII S155(eel 50.59(6 50.705.715. 5.73,and 50.78 are Issued under sec. 81. a68 Stat950. as amended (42 U.SC 22CM(o)).3. In I 50M34 paragraph (b)(8) isrevised as follows:B- 16 sNo. 57 Wednesday, Mc .Rules and Regulations9469itrse esn nopruiyti 60.34 Contents of appUt;ation5 tchnicalhitormatlWn.* * *

• 0(b) *(8) A description and plans forimplementation of an operatorrequalification program. The operatorrequalification program must as aminimum. meet the requirements forthose programs contained In 1 5.59 ofPart 55 of this chapter.* *

• 04. In I 50.K paragraphs (I) and (I-1L)are revised to read as follows:110.54 Canduomn ooloens* * *

• 0(I) Except as provided in 5 65.13 ofthis chapter. the licensee may not permitthe manipulation of the controls of anyfacility by anyone who Is not a licensedoperator or senior operator as providedin Part 55 of this chapter.(i-i) Within three months afterIssuance of an operating license. thelicensee shall have In effect an operatorrequalification program which must as iminimums meet the requirements ofI 55.59(c) of this chapter.Notwithstanding the provisions ofI 50.59, the licensee may not, except asspecifically authorized by theCommission decrease the scope of anapproved operator requalificationprogram.* * *

• 0S. Immediately following 1 50.73."Licensee Event Report System." a nev5 50.74 Is added as a conformingamendment to read as follows:I 0.74 Notification of Change In opnrtcor senior operator status.Each licensee shall notify theCommission in accordance with 1 50.4within 30 days of the following In rega:to a licensed operator or senioroperator(a) Permanent reassignment from thlposition for which the licensee hascertified the need for a licensed operaor senior operator under I 55.31ta)M3) ithis chapter.(b) Termination of any operator orsenior operator.(c) Disability or illness as descrlded1 55.25 of this chapter.Dated at Washington. DC. this 2oth dayMarch 1987.For the Nuclear Regulatory Commissionlohn C. Hoyle,Acting Secreforylorthe Commission.JFR Doc. 87-6476 Filed 3-24-87; 8:45 aml1LLN4 C00 16l041-DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ipFederal Aviation Adminisltration a14 CFR Part 39 i(Docket No. 3NM-21 -AD. Armdt. 31-15" ENAirworthiresDirecUvos; Bo" sModel 747 and 757 Series AkrplunmAGExcT: Federal Aviation nAdminIstratIon FAAM) DOT,ACTION: Final rule. zsummARr. This amendment adopts anew airworthiness directive (AD),applicable to Boeing Models 747 and 757series airplanes, which requiresInspection of the passenger dooremergency power reservoir for integrityof the pressure relief rupture disk,repair, If necessary, and replacement ofdefective disk retainers. Thisamendment is prompted by numerousreports of emergency power reservoirsfound to be prematurely discharged.This condition, If not corrected, wouldrender the emergency power reservoirincapable of pr9viding power to assist inopening the door quickly when requiredfor emergency evacuation.DATES: Effective May 1.1987.ADDRESSES: The applicable Boeingservice Information may be obtainedfrom the Boeing Commercial AirplaneCompany, PD. Box 3707, Seattle.Washington 98124; the applicable H.R.Textron service Information may beobtained from HR. Textron. 25200 WestRye Canyon Road, Valencia. California91355. This information may beexamined at the FAA, NorthwestMountain Region. 17900 Pacific HighwayC South. Seattle, Washington. or theSeattle Aircraft Certification Office.9010 East Marginal Way-South. Seattle,Washingon 98168rd FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT

Mr. Pliny Brestel, Airframe Branch.ANM-120S; telephone (20W) 431-1931.Mailing address: FAA. NorthwestMountain Region. 17900 Pacific Highwaybr South. C-68988, Seattle. WashingtontDr 98i68.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Aproposal to amend Part 39 of the FederalAviation Regulations to include anairworthiness directive which requiresI In Inspection of the passenger dooremergency power reservoir on BoeingOf Models 747 and 757 series airplanes forIntegrity of the pressure relief rupturedisk. repair, if necessary. andreplacement of defective disk retainerswas published in the Federal Register onDecember 24.1986 (51 FR 46687). Thecomment period for the NPRM, whichended February 15, 1987, affordedparticipate in the mnaking of thissmendracuat Due consideration has beengiven to the comments received.The Air Transport Association (ATA)of America representing operators ofBoeing Model 747 and 757 airplanestated that the proposed rule requiringnspection of all 747 and 757 airplanes IsLot tustified for those operators whoserecords list the serial numbers andipplicabte aircraft of the subjecteservo3Uir Italled The ATA. therefore.equested that paragrph A. of theproposed rule be deleted and that theeffectivity be revised to read "Boeing:Applies to all Model 747 and 757 seriessirplanes equipped with emergencypower reservoirs listed In H.R. TextronService Bulletin No. 81103300-52-." TheFAA agrees that It Is unnecessary toinspect the airplanes If records areavailable to determine the serialnumbers of the reservoirs Installed, andthe AD has been revised accordingly.however. In absence of such records,operators must inspect for serialnumbers In accordance with theapplicable service bulletin.The ATA also commented that the"NOTE in the proposed rule whichadvises readers that the affectedreservoirs may be installed on otherairplanes should be deleted because, Ifadopted; will create confusion In thefield since the effectivity of theproposed rule is clearly only againstBoeing aircraft. The FAA concurs thatthe effectivity is only Boeing aircraft andspecifically Models 747 and 757;however. the "NOTE" should not bedeleted because, while some Boeing 747and 757 aircraft may have beendelivered without defective reservoirs, adefective reservoir could have beenInstalled In the field since delivery. Thenote has been revised to reflect "BoeingModel 747 and 757 series airplanes."-The ATA also requested that theinitial compliance period in paragraphA. of the proposed rule be changed from60 to 90 days to afford those operators.who may not have records listing serialnumbers of reservoirs, additional time tocomplete the fleet inspection todetermine if they are affected by therule. The ATA stated that. in someinstances (likely 509), the installedreservoirs would require removal toread the serial number. Further, someoperators check the reservoirs every*four days and. therefore, need time tochange their maintenance program tocomply with the daily check requirementof paragraph B. The FAA does notconcur with an extension of the initialcompliance period from 60 to 90 days inthat air safety and public interestB- 17 Appendix CRegulatory Guide.1.134Medical Evaluation of Licensed Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants C-IU.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONRevision 2April 1087REGULATORY GUIDEOFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCHREGULATORY GUIDE 1.134(Task OL 401-5)MEDICAL EVALUATION OF LICENSED PERSONNEL FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTSA. INTRODUCTIONSections 55.31, "How To Apply," and 55.57, "Renewalof Licenses," of 10 CFR Part 55, "Operators' Licenses,"require that each initial or renewal application for anoperator or senior operator license contain a medicalexamination certification following the form prescribedin Subpart C of Part 55, "Medical Requirements." Sec-tions 55.33, "Disposition of Initial Application," and55.57 state that the initial or renewal applications forthese licenses will be approved if, among other things,the applicant has no medical or general health conditionthat might cause operational errors endangering publichealth and safety. Paragraph (i) of § S5.S3, "Conditionsof Licenses," requires that an examination be conductedevery 2 years.Section 55.25, "Incapacitation Because of DisabilityOr Illness," deals with an operator or senior operatorVho becomes incapacitated because of a mental orphysical condition that might cause impaired judgmentor-motor coordination.Section 55.27, "Documentation," requires that thefacility licensee document and maintain the medical quali-fications data, current test results, and each operator'smedical history and provide these to the NRC upon itsrequest.This guide describes a method acceptable to the NRCstaff for providing the information needed by the stafffor its evaluation of the medical qualifications of applicantsfor initial or renewal operator or senior operator licensesfor nuclear power plants and for providing notification tothe NRC of an incapacitating disability or illness.The substantial number of changes in this revision has made itimpractical to indicate the changes with lines in the margin.The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards hasbeen consulted concerning this guide and has concurred inthe regulatory position.Any Information collection activities mentioned in thisregulatory guide are contained as requirements in 10 CFRPart 55, which provides the regulatory basis for this guide.The information collection requirements in 10 CFR Part 55have been cleared under OMB Clearance No. 3150-0018.B. DISCUSSIONSection 55.23, "Certification," of Subpart C, "MedicalRequirements," of 10 CFR Part 55 requires that a physicianexamine the applicant in accordance with NRC's regulatoryguidance and determine that the examinee's medical condi-tion and general health meet the requirements for grantingor renewing an operator license. The physician must send afull medical examination report to the facility licensee,which will then transmit a completed Form 396 to theNRC. The intent of these requirements is to have the facilitylicensee certify the health of its operators. However, thefacility licensee is expected to maintain those records thatmay be reviewed by the NRC. Therefore, § 55.27 requiresthe facility licensee to document and maintain the fullmedical examination report, including the results of medicalqualifications data, test results, and each operator's medicalhistory. In addition, § 55.27 requires the facility licenseeto retain the most recent medical information as a result ofthe biennial physical examination and provide that informa-tion to the NRC on request. The certification form wouldbe sent by the facility licensee to the NRC.There are two instances in which medical informationmust be sent to the NRC. One is when a conditional licensebased on medical evidence is requested under the provisionsof paragraph 55.33(b). The second instance is when a licensedindividual has become mentally or physically unable toUSNRC REGULATORY GUIDES The guides are Issued In the following ten broad divisions:Regulatory Guides are issued to describe and make available to thepublic methods acceptable to the NRC staff of Implementing 1. Power Reactors 6. Productsspecific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate tech- 2. Research and Test Reactors 7. Transportationniques used by the staff In evaluating specific problems or postu- 3. Fuels and Materials Facilities B. Occupational Healthiated ccIdents or to provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory 4. Environmental and Siting 9. Antitrust and Financial ReviewGuides are noi substitutes for regulations, and compliance with 5. Materials and Plant Protection 10. Generalthem is not required. Methods and solutlons different from those setout In the guides will be acceptable if they provide a basis for thefindings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or Copies of Issued guides may be purchased from the Governmentlicense by the Commission. Printing Office at the current GPO pric Information on currentGPO prices may be obtained by contacting the Superintendent ofThis guide was issued after consideration of comments received from Documents, U.5 Government Printing Office, Post Office Boxthe public. Comments and suggestions for Improvements In these 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082, telephone (202)275-2060 orguides are encouraged at all times, and guides will be revised, as (202)275-2171.appropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new Informa-tion or experience.Issued guides may also be purchased from the National TechnicalWritten comments may be submitted to the Rules and Procedures Information ServIce on a standing order basis Details on thisiBranch, ORR AOM, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, service may be obtained by writing NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road,Washinfton, DC 20555. Springfield, VA 2216 C-2perform job duties. In this case, the facility licenseemust notify the NRC within 30 days after learning thatthe diagnosis has been made. The facility licensee mustforward to the NRC Form 396 and medical recordsdescribing the disability. This related information isrequired by § 55.27 to be documented and maintainedby the facility.An American National Standard developed by theAmerican Nuclear Society, ANSI/ANS-3.4-1983, "MedicalCertification and Monitoring of Personnel RequiringOperator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,"I prescribesminimum requirements necessary to determine that themedical condition and general health of nuclear reactoroperators will not cause operational errors. The criteriapresented in this standard provide an examining physiciana basis for determining whether a potentially disqualify-ing abnormal health condition exists. Establishing mini-mum health requirements should aid in more uniformmedical evaluations. However, it is necessary to recognizethat, although it is the physician's responsibility toidentify and evaluate any potentially disqualifyingmedical conditions, NRC makes the final determinationof the applicant's medical fitness.1Coples may be obtained from the American Nuclear Society,555 North Xensington Avenue, La Grange Park, Mlinois 60525.Nothing in ANSI/ANS-3.4-1983 or this guide shouldbe construed to mean that such matters as an indi-vidual's reading habits, political or religious beliefs, orattitudes on social, economic, or political issues shouldbe investigated or judged.C. REGULATORY PQSITIONThe requirements contained in ANSI/ANS-3.4-1983,"Medical Certification and Monitoring of PersonnelRequiring Operator Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,"Iprovide a method acceptable to the NRC staff fordetermining the medical qualifications of applicants forinitial or renewal operator or senior operator licenses.D. IMPLEMENTATIONThe purpose of this section is to provide informationto applicants and licensees about the staff's plans forusing this regulatory guide.Except in those cases in which the licensee proposesan acceptable alternative method for complying withspecified portions of the Commission's regulations, themethods described in the guide will be used in evaluat-ing the part of an application for initial or renewal opera-tor or senior operator licenses on NRC Form 396, "Certifi-cate of Medical Examination by Facility Licensee."1.134-2 C-3VALUE/IMPACT ANALYSISA separate value/impact analysis has not been pre-pared for this regulatory guide. A value/impact analysiswas included in the regulatory analysis for the amend-ments to 10 CFR Part 55 published on March 25, 1987,a copy of which was placed in the Public DocumentRoom at that time. This analysis is also appropriateto Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.134. A copy ofthe regulatory analysis is available for inspection andcopying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC. .*1.134-3 Appendix DRegulatory Guide 1.149Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in OperatorLicense Examinations D-1U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONRevision 1.April 1987REGULATORY GUIDEOFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCHREGULATORY GUIDE 1.149(Task OL 402-5)NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SIMULATION FACILITIES FOR USEIN OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATIONSA. INTRODUCTIONParagraph 55.45(a) of 10 CFR Part 55, "Operators'Licenses," requires that an applicant for an operator orsenior operator license demonstrate both an pnderstand-ing of and the ability to perform certain essential jobtasks. Paragraph 55.45(b) specifies that these operatingtests will be administered, in part, either in a simulationfacility consisting solely of a plant-referenced simulatorthat has been certified to the Commission by thefacility licensee or in a simulation facility approved bythe Commission after application has been made by thefacility licensee.1This regulatory guide describes a method acceptableto the NRC staff for complying with those portions ofthe Commission's regulations regarding (1) certificationof a simulation facility consisting solely of a plant-referenced simulator and (2) application for prior ap-proval of a simulation facility.The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards hasbeen consulted concerning this guide and has concurredin the regulatory position.Any information collection activities mentioned inthis regulatory guide are contained as requirements inthose sections of 10 CFR Part 55 that provide theregulatory basis for this guide. The information collec-tion requirements in 10 CFR Part 55 have been clearedunder Clearance No. 31504018 and No. 3150-0138.The substantial number of changes In this revision has made Itimpractical to indicate the changes with lines in the margin.'A simulation facility is defined in § s5 5A as one or more of thefollowing components, alone or in combination, used for the partialconduct of operating tests for operators, senior operators and candi-dates (i) the lant, (H) a pIant-eferenced simulator,(il) anothersimulauion duiceB. DISCUSSIONAlthough ensuring that individuals who receive opera-tor or senior operator licenses possess the knowledge,skills, and abilities necessary to operate the facility in asafe manner is the responsibility of facility licensees, theNuclear Regulatory Commission must perform an inde-pendent audit of this process through its operatorlicensing examinations. Section 55.45, "Operating Tests,"of 10 CFR Part 55 requires the candidate for a licenseto demonstrate (1) an understanding of and the abilityto perform the actions necessary during normal, abnor-mal, and emergency situations; (2) the operation ofsystems that affect heat removal or reactivity changes;and (3) behaviors that show the individual's ability tofunction within the control room team in such a waythat the facility licensee's procedures are adhered to andthat the limitations in its license and amendments arenot violated.The use of a plant-referenced simulator for testingenables the examiner to evaluate a candidate's perfor-mance in an environment closely correlated with condi-tions in the specific plant for which that candidate hasapplied for a license. With major facility differencesminimized between the testing and operating environ-ments, examiners have been able. to make pass-failjudgments with confidence.Although the increased use of plant-referenced simu-lators has provided to examiners the capability forbetter discrimination between success and failure in acandidate than could be achieved with non-plant-referenced simulators, the staff recognizes the existenceof several factors that could suggest the use of alterna-tive systems or devices for conducting the non-walkthrough portions of operating tests. These factorsUSNRC REGULATORY GUIDES The guides are Issued In the following ten broad divislOns:Regulatory Guides are issued to describe and make available to thepublic methods acceptable to the NRC staff of implementing 1 Power Reactors 6. Productsspecific parts of the Commlssion's, regulations, to delineate tech- 2. Research and Test Reactors 7. Transportationniques used by the staf In evaluating specific probiems or postu- 3 Fuels end Materials Facilities aS. Occupational Healthated acidents or to rovide guidance to appicants Regulatory 4. Environmental and Siting g, Antitrust and Financial ReviewGuids are noX substitutes for regulations, and compliance with 5. Materiasand Plant Protection 10. GeneraIthem is not requird. Methods and solutions different from those setout In the guides will be acceptable If they provide a basis for thefindings rquisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or Copies of Issued guides may be purchased from the GovernmentPrinting Office at the current GPO price. Information on currentGPO prices may be obtained by contacting the Superintendent ofThis guide was issued after consideration of comments received from Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office. Post Office Boxthe public. Comments and suggestions for improvements In these 37082. Washington, DC 20013-7082, telephone (202)275.2060 orguides are encouraged at all times. and guides will be revised, as (202)275-2171.apropriate. to accommodate comments and to reflect new Informs-Issued guides may also be purchased from the National TechnicalnorexperericlonaetadiceodeWritten comments may be submitted to the Rules and Procedures Information ServiMce on a sanding Order b sis Details on thisBranch. OARR ADM, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, service may be obtained by writing NTIS. 5285 Rort Royal Road,Washington. 0C 20555. Springtbild, VA 2216 D-2include the cost and lead time associated with procure-ment or upgrading of a plant-referenced simulator. Moremover, rapidly changing technology in the simulation indus-try is resulting in previously unavailable options thatcould lead a facility licensee to seek alternative ways tomeet the requirements of §55.45. ANSI/ANS-3.5-1985,"Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in OperatorTraining"2 (the standard), in conjunction with thisregulatory guide, provides guidance in these areas.C. REGULATORY POSITIONRequirements are set forth in ANSI/ANS-3.5-1985 forspecifying minimum performance and configuration cri-teria for a simulator, for comparing a simulator to itsreference plant, and for upgrading simulators to reflectchanges to reference plant response or control roomconfiguration. These requirements provide a methodacceptable to the NRC staff for a facility licensee (1) tocertify a simulation facility consisting solely of a plant-referenced simulator or (2) to obtain approval of asimulation facility for use in portions of reactor opera-tor and senior operator license examinations subject tothe following:1. The references to operator training in Section 1,"Scope," of the standard should be taken to apply tooperating tests for operators; senior operators, andcandidates.2. Simulation facilities as defined in §55.4 of 10 CFRPart 5S, to the extent that the facility licensee appliesfor approval under the requirements of paragraph 55.45(b),should meet the applicable requirements of the standard.3. The standard identifies in Section 1.1, "Background,"other documents to be included as part of the standard.The applicability of one of these documents, ANSI/ANS-3.1,2 should be determined by referring to Revi-sion 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8, "Qualification andTraining of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants."4. Section 5.2, "Simulator Update Design Data," re-quires that reference plant modifications be reviewedannually against the simulator and that the simulatorupdate design data be revised as appropriate. Thisshould be taken to mean that the first such annualreview and update should take place within one yearfollowing the facility licensee's certification as specifiedin paragraph 55.45(b)(5Xi) or within 18 months follow-ing the submittal of the application for approval asspecified in paragraph 55.45(b)(4)(i).5. Section 5A, "Simulator Testing," requires the con-duct of specific tests to establish simulator performanceand verify its operability. IJn addition to these proce-dures, applicable malfunctions, identified in Section3.1.2, "Plant Malfunctions," should be periodically tested2Copies may be obtained from the American Nuclear Society,555 North Kensington Avenue, La Grange Park, IL 60525.to ensure the continued acceptability of the simulationfacility. These malfunctions, if applicable to the facility,should be tested in their entirety not less than everyfour years, approximately 25% per year. When con-ducted in addition to the tests required by Section 5.4and when subjected to the performance criteria fortransient operations specified in Section 4.2, "TransientOperation," these malfunction tests provide an accept-able means of demonstrating the performance andoperability of the simulation facility.6. Appendix A to the standard, "Guide for Document-ing Simulator Performance," and Appendix B to thestandard, "Simulator Operability Tests," should be con-sidered integral parts of the standard.D. IMPLEMENTATIONThe purpose of this section is to provide informationto facility licensees about the NRC staff's plans for usingthis regulatory guide.In accordance with the requirements in §55.45 of10 CFR Part 55, the simulation facility portion of theoperating test will not be administered on other than anapproved or a certified simulation facility after:1. The facility licensee has submitted a certificationin accordance with paragraph 55.45(bX5)(i), or2. The staff has approved an application submittedby the facility licensee in accordance with paragraph55.45(bX4), or3. May 28, 1991, whichever occurs sooner.Until that time, the NRC will continue to give exami-nations for a facility licensee's reference plant in accord-ance with Generic Letter 82-18, "Reactor Operator andSenior Reactor Operator Requalification Examinations,"3October 12, 1982.Licensees and applicants may propose means otherthan those specified in Section C of this guide for meetingapplicable regulations. Except in those cases in which afacility licensee submits a certification for its simulationfacility or proposes an acceptable alternative method forcomplying with specified portions of the Commission'sregulations, the NRC will use the method described inthis guide in the evaluation of the application forapproval submitted by the facility licensee for its simula-tion facility. The guidance provided in Section C hasbeen approved for use by the staff in the evaluation ofall submittals as an acceptable means of complying withthe Commission's regulations specified in Section A.If a facility licensee wishes to utilize a simulationfacility for more than one nuclear power plant, it must3Avaflable for copying for a fee or inspection at the NRCPublc Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.1.149-2 D-3demonstrate to the NRC in its certification or in itsapplication that the differences between the plants arenot so significant that they have an impact on theability of the simulation facility to meet the require-ments and guidance of ANSI/ANS-3.5-1985 as qualifiedin this regulatory guide for each of the plants. Thisdemonstration should include an analysis and summaryof the differences between each plant and the simula-tion facility, including:1. Facility design and systems relevant to controlroom personnel;2. Technical specifcations;3. Procedures, primarily abnormal and emergencyoperating procedures;4. Control room design and instrument/control loca-tion; andS. Operational characteristics.1.149-3 D-4 '-IVALUE/IMPACT ANALYSISA separate value/impact analysis has not been pre-pared for this regulatory guide. A value/impact analysiswas included in the regulatory analysis for the amend-ments to 10 CFR Part 55 published on March 25, 1987,a copy of which was placed in the Public DocumentRoom at that time. This analysis is also appropriate toRevision I of Regulatory Guide 1.149. A copy of theregulatory analysis is available for inspection and copy-ing for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.1.149-4 Appendix ERegulatory Guide 1.8Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants l- ~E-1Revision 21U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION April 1987REGULATORY GUIDEOFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCHREGULATORY GUIDE 1.8-Task OL 403.6)QUALIFICATION AND TRAINING OF PERSONNELFOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTSA. INTRODUCTIONParagraph S0.34(bX6Xi) of 10 CFR Part 50, "Domesticlicensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," requiresthat an application for a license to operate a nuclearpower plant include information concerning organizationalstructure, personnel qualifications, and related matters.Subpart D, "Applications:' of 10 CFR Part 55, "Operators'Licenses," requires that operator license applicationsinclude information concerning an individual's educationand experience and related matters. This regulatory guidedescribes a method acceptable to the NRC staff forcomplying with those portions of the Commission'sregulations with regard to the training and qualificationsof nuclear power plant personnel. Personnel of test,training, research, and mobile reactors are pot coveredby this regulatory guide.The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards hasbeen consulted concerning this guide and has concurredin the regulatory position.Any information collection activities mentioned inthis regulatory guide are contained as requirements in10 CFR Parts 50 and 55, which provide the regulatorybasis for this guide. The information collection require-ments in 10 CFR Part 50 have been approved underOMB Clearance No. 3150il, those in 10 CFR Part55, under OMB Clearance No. 3150-0018.B. DISCUSSIONmittee ~ ~ ; .N3 RecoSubcommittee ANS-3, Reactor Operations, AmericanNuclear Society Standards Committee, 'developed astandard containing criteria for 'the qualification andThe substantial number of changes In this revision has made ItImpractical to indicate the changes with lines In the margin.training of nuclear power plant personnel. This standardwas approved by the American National StandardsInstitute (ANSI) Committee N18, Design Criteria forNuclear Power Plants, and--designated ANSI N18.1-1971,"Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Person-neL." Regulatory Guide 1.8, "Personnel Selection andTraining," endorsing ANSI N18.l-1971, was issued inMarch 1971, and Revision I was issued in September1975. A revision of ANSI N18.1-1971 was subsequentlyapproved by the ANSI Board of Standards Review anddesignated ANSIWANS-3.1-1978, "Selection and Trainingof Nuclear Power Plant PersonneL"A first proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8endorsing ANSI/ANS-3. 11978 was issued for publiccomment in February 1979. As a result of experiencegained from the accident, at Three Mile Island Unit 2(TMI-2), additional public comments in the area ofpersonnel ,qualifications were requested. on proposedRevision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8 in May 1979. Allof the comments from both, requests were forwarded tothe ANS-3 Subcommittee for Its use during the develop-ment of a revision to ANSI/ANS-3.1-1978. Subsequent-ly, Draft Standard ANS 3.1, dated December 6, 1979,incorporating the upgraded requirements was issued. InSeptember 1980, public comments were requested on asecond proposed Revision 2 to Regulatory Guide 1.8that endorsed Draft Standard ANS 3.1. The publiccomments received were held in abeyance pendingCommission action on proposed rules on operatorqualifications and licensing in SECY 81-84, "Qualifica-tion of 'Reactor Operators,"l February 2, 1981, andSECY 8 li-84A, '"Discussion of Revisions to ReactorOperator Qualifications,"1 June 15, 1981. The Commis-sion did not approve either of these 'proposals anddirected the staff to continue to study the 'issue.1Coples are available for inspection or copying oratee In theNRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW., Washington, DC.USNRC REGULATORY GUIDESRegulatory Guides are Issued to describe and make available to thepubic methods acceptable to the NRC staff of Implementingpecific Parts of the CommIssion's regulations, to delineate tech-nkaues used by the staff In evaluating specific problems or postu-ated accidents or to provide guidance to applkcants "RegulatoryGuides ar no substitutes for regulations, and compliance withthem Is not required. Methods and solutions different from those setout In the guides will be acceptable It they provide a basis for thefindings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permIt orlicense by the CommissIon.This guide was issued after consideration of comments received fromthe public. Comments and suggestions for Improvements In theseguides are encouraged at all times, and guides will be revised, as*ppropriate, to accommodate comments and to reflect new Informa-tion or experience.Written comments may be submitted to the Rules and ProceduresBranch, DRR ADM U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Washington. Do 20555.The guides are Issued In the following ten broad divisions:1. Power Reactors 6. Products2 Research and Test Reactors 7 Transportation3 Fuels and Materials Facilities 6C Occupational Health4. Environmental and Siting 9 Antitrust and Financial ReviewS. Materials and Plant Protection 10. GeneralCopies of Issued guIdes may be urchased from the GovernmentPrInting Office at the current GIO price. Information on currentGPO Prices may te obtained by contacting the Superintendent ofDocuments. US Goverment Printing O ce. Post Office Box37082, sington DC 20013 702 telephone (202)275-2060 or(22)7-11Issued guides may also be purchased from the National Technicalinformation Service on a standing order basis Details on thisservIce may be obtained by writing NTIS. 5265 Rort Royal Road,Springfield, VA 2216 E-2During 1981, Draft Standard ANS 3.1 was updated tofactor in additional lessons learned from the TMI-2accident and changing regulatory requirements. Thestandard was approved by the American Nuclear Society'sNuclear Power Plant Standards Committee (NUPPSCO)and the ANSI Board of Standards Review and wasreissued as ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981, "Selection, Qualificationand Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants."2 Athird proposed Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.8 wasdeveloped to endorse ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981 with certainadditions and exceptions and was issued for public com-ment in January 1985. As a result of the public com-ments and Commission actions concerning training andqualifications, this Revision 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.8now endorses Sections 4.3.1.1, "Shift Supervisor," 4.3.1.2,"Senior Operator," 4.5.1.2, "Licensed- Operators," 4.4.8,"Shift Technical Advisor," and 4.4.4, "Radiation Protec-tion," of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981. Endorsement for all otherpositions will remain with ANSI N18.1-1971, "Selectionand Training of Nuclear Power Plant PersonneL" Thebases for the additions and exceptions to ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981 are contained in NUREG-0737, "Clarification ofTMI Action Plan Requirements,"3 which includes theMarch 28, 1980 letter to all power reactor applicantsand licensees regarding qualification of reactor operators,and NUREG-0094, "Guide for the Licensing of FacilityOperators, Including Senior Operators,'4 and the Commis-sion's "Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise onShift" (50 FR 43621) The regulatory position relatedto the radiation protection manager is revised from whatwas included in Revision I of Regulatory Guide 1.8 (1975).The industry has adopted the requisite qualifications inANSI/ANS 3.1-1981, and the current change endorsesthat industry position.On March 20, 1985, the Commission issued a "PolicyStatement on Training and Qualification of NuclearPower Plant Personnel" (50 FR 11147) that recog-nizes industry commitment to accredit training pro.grams. In the policy statement, the NRC endorsed thetraining accreditation program managed by the Instituteof Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) because it encom-passes the elements of performance-based training andwill provide the basis to ensure that personnel havequalifications commensurate with the performance re-quirements of their jobs. The Commission has decidedto withhold action on promulgating new training andqualifications regulations during an evaluation period.During that period, NRC will- continue to evaluate theresults of the accreditation program to determine if thevoluntary industry efforts ensure qualifications that meetor exceed the minimum standards included in this guide.The Commission's "Policy Statement on EngineeringExpertise on Shift" issued on October 28, 1985 (50 FR43621) provides two options for meeting nuclear powerplant staffing requirements (paragraph 50.54(mX2Xi) of2Coples may be obtained from the American Nuclear Society,555 North Kensington Avenue, LaGrange Park, IL 60525.Post e may be obtained from the Government Printing Office,Post Offlo Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082.10 CFR Part 50) and the requirement to have a shifttechnical advisor (STA) available to the shift (NUREG-0737, LA.1.1). One option in the Policy Statement,which is preferred by the Commission, allows combiningthe functions of the STA with one of the required senioroperators as long as specific training and educationrequirements are met. The other option allows for con-tinuation of an approved independent STA program.Regulatory Position C.j reflects the guidance providedin this Policy Statement.C. REGULATORY POSITION1. Positions in ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981 that Are Endorsedby this Regulatory GuideFor the positions listed in ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981,"Selection, Qualification and Training of Personnel forNuclear Power Plants," as shift supervisor, senior opera-tor, licensed operator, and shift technical advisor, therequirements contained in the standard provide anapproach acceptable to the NRC staff for complying withthe qualifications and training requirements of 10 CFRParts SO and 55 subject to the guidance regarding theSTA function provided in the Commission's "PolicyStatement on Engineering Expertise on Shift" and theclarifications, additions, and exceptions in paragraphs athrough k below. For radiation protection supervisorypersonnel, Section 4.4.4 of the standard contains anapproach acceptable for the position of radiation protec-tion manager (RPM) subject to the following:a. In lieu of the description in Section 5.1 of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981, cold license examinations should be definedas those that are administered before the unit has com-pleted preoperational testing and initial operations asdescribed in its Final Safety Analysis Report as amendedand approved by the Commission. Hot examinations arethose administered after this condition is attained.b. Hot license applicants must meet the trainingelements in Sections 4.3.I.l.c, 4.3.1.2.c, and 4.5.1.2.c ofthe standard and the experience elements in Sections4.3.1.1.b, 4.3.1.2.b, and 4.5.1.2.b of the standard. Coldlicense applicants are subject to the training elementsidentified above, but they are exempt from the expe-rience elements.c. Paragraph 2 of Section 4.3.1.1.a of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981 is not applicable. An individual who meets theCommission's "Policy Statement on Engineering Expertiseon Shift" is required on all shifts to provide engineeringexpertise (see Regulatory Position C.Ij).d. The minimum educational requirement for shiftsupervisors, Section 4.3.1.1.a, and for senior operators,Section 4.3.1.2.a, is a high school diploma or equivalent.e. An applicant for a senior operator (SO) licenseshould have 4 years of responsible power plant exper-ience. Responsible power plant experience for an SO isdefined as having actively performed as a designated1.8-2 E-3control room operator (fossil or nuclear) or as a powerplant staff engineer involved in the day-to-day activitiesof the facility during or after the final year of construc-tion. A maximum of 2 years of responsible power plantexperience may be fulfilled by academic or related tech-nical training on a one-for-one time basis. Two years shouldbe nuclear power plant experience. At least 6 months ofthe nuclear power plant experience should be at theplant for which an applicant seeks a license. In addition,applicants for an SO position not holding a bachelor'sdegree in engineering or equivalent should have held anoperator's license and should have been actively involvedin the performance of licensed duties for at least 1 year.f. In addition to the requirements stated in Section5.2.1.2.1 of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981, classroom instructionfor all license applicants should include training in theuse of installed plant systems for the control and mitiga-tion of an accident in which the core is severely damaged.g. In addition to the requirements in Section 5.2.1.3.1of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981, each applicant for an operator orsenior operator license should serve 3 months as an extraperson on shift in training for that position. These 3months as an extra person on shift in training shouldinclude all phases of day-to-day operations under thesupervision of licensed personnel.h. Control room operating experience for hot licenseapplicants, described in Section 5.2.1.3.1 of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981, should include manipulation of controls of thefacility during a minimum of five reactivity changes. Everyeffort should be made to have a diversity of reactivitychanges for each applicant. Startups, shutdowns, large loadchanges, and changes in rod programming are some exam-ples and could be accomplished by manually using suchsystems as rod control, chemical shim control, or recircu-lation flow.i. All cold license applicants should participate inpractical work assignments as described in Section 5.2.1.4of ANSI(ANS-3.1-1981 for a minimum of 6 months.j. In addition to the responsibilities described in Sec-tion 4.4.8 of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981, the STA should assumean active role in shift activities. For example, the STAshould review plant logs, participate in shift turnover,and maintain awareness of plant configuration and status.The educational requirements for the STA specified inSection 4.4.8.a of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981 are not appli-cable. An independent STA should have, a bachelor'sdegree or equivalent in a scientific or engineering discipline."Actively performing STA functions" means perform-ing at least three shifts per quarter as the STA. If anSTA has not actively performed, the STA should receivetraining sufficient to. ensure that the STA is cognizant offacility and procedure changes that occurred during theabsence.Combining the functions of a senior operator and theSTA is acceptable if the provisions of the Commission's"Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift"are met. In addition to the requirements specified inSection 4.4.8.c of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981, the STA shouldhave specific training in the response to and analysis ofplant transients and accidents and training in the rela-tionship of accident conditions to offsite consequencesand protective action strategies.k. The radiation protection manager should have thequalifications described in Section 4.4.4 of ANSI/ANS-3.1-1981 with the clarification that 3 of the 4 years ofexperience in applied radiation protection should beprofessional-level experience.2. Positions in ANSI/ANS N18.1-1971 that Are Endorsedby this Regulatory GuideFor positions listed in the standard other than thoseunder Regulatory Position I above, the requirements con-tained in ANSI N18.1-1971, "Selection and Training ofNuclear Power Plant Personnel," provide an approachacceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the quali-fications and training requirements of 10 CFR Parts 50and 55.D. IMPLEMENTATIONThe purpose of this section is to provide informationto applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staff'splans for using this regulatory guide.Applicants and licensees may propose means otherthan those specified in Section C of this guide for meet-ing applicable regulations.Except in those cases in which the applicant or licenseeproposes an acceptable alternative means of complyingwith the Commission's regulations specified in Section A,the guidance provided in Section C has been approvedfor use by the staff after March 31, 1988, in the evalua-tion of the qualifications and training requirements for(1) nuclear power plant personnel as described in appli-cations for .an operating license, (2) applicants for opera-tor and senior operator licenses, and (3) replacementpersonnel in those positions in operating nuclear powerplants whose training programs have not yet been accred-ited by an accreditation program endorsed by the NRC.1.8-3 E-4VALUE/IMPACT ANALYSISA separate value/impact analysis has not been preparedfor this regulatory guide. A value/impact analysis wasincluded in the regulatory analysis for the amendments to10 CFR Part 55 published on March 25, 1987, a copyof which was placed in the Public Document Room atthat time. This analysis is also appropriate to Revision 2of Regulatory Guide 1.8. A copy of the regulatory anal-ysis is available for inspection and copying for a fee atthe NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW.,Washington, DC.1.8-4

.A~- ---- -----NUMBER AssigwdbVTIOC. ad rVioN.. If" t -,7NUREG-1262NRC FORMNRCM 1102. BIN201 3202 O E .SEE INSTRUtCTIONS ON THE REVERSE.U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIONBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET2 TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. LEAVE BLANK --Answers to Questions at Public Meetings RegardingImplementation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations,Part 55-on Operatorst Licenses '4 DATE REPORT COMPLETEDMONTH -YEARS. AUTHORtS) -November 1987.6 DATEREPORTISSUED .MONTH 197 YEAR,November @ 19877. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS Ulwci Zro Cd) S. PROJECTITASK/WORK UNIT NUMBERDivision of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation _Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 9. FIN OR GRANT NUMBERU. S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 2055510. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS IInOWch ZS Codru 11. TYPE OF REPORTDivision of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation Question and AnswerOffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Pnd Answe rU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission bPERIODCOVERED ,lnuui4ruWashington, DC 2055512 SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES13. ABSTRACT (2W P01* or ftuThis document presents questions and answers based on the transcripts of four publicmeetings (and from written questions submitted after the meetings) conducted fromApril 9 to April 20, 1987 by the staff of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Themeetings discussed implementation of the Commission's final rule governing Operators'Licenses and Conforming Amendments (10 CFR Parts 55 and 50), The rule became effectiveMay 26, 1987 and is intended to clarify the regulations for issuing licenses to operatorsand senior operators; revise the requirements and scope of written examinations andoperating tests for operators and senior operators, including a requirement for asimulation facility; clarify procedures for administering requalification examinations:and describe the form and content for operator license applications.14. DOCUMENT ANALYSIS -a. KEYWORDSIDESCRIPTORS IS. AVAILABILITYSTATEMENTNuclear PowerUnlimitedIS. SECURITYCLASSIFICATION(This pope)b. IDENTIFIERSIOPEN-ENDED TERMSOperator Licenses (Ta, We'Q,)10 CFR Parts 50 and 55 __?.U _BE _OF _AGESimulation FacilitiesRequalification Examinations 18 PRICE*U.S.GGVERNMENT PRINTING WrVcEI1987-2O2-292i60299 4.LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED GENERIC LETTERSGenericLetter No.Date ofSubject IssuanceIssued ToGL B7-16GL 87-15GL 87-14GL 87-13GL 87-12GL 87-11GL 87-10NUREG-1262, "ANSWERS TOQUESTIONS AT PUBLIC MEETINGSRE IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR55ON OPERATORSLICENSESPOLICY STATEMENT ON DEFERREDPLANTSREQUEST FOR OPERATOR LICENSESCHEDULESINTEGRITY OF REQUALIFICATIONEXAMINATIONS AT NON-POWERREACTORS50.54(f) LETTER RE. LOSS OFRESIDUAL HEAT REMOVAL (RHR)DURING MID-LOOP OPERATIONRELAXATION IN ARBITRARYINTERMEDIATE PIPE RUPTUREREQUIREMENTSIMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR73.57, REQUIREMENTS FOR FBICRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS11/12/8711/04/8708/04/8707/10/8707/09/8706/23/8706/12/87ALL POWER ANDNONPOWERREACTORLICENSEES ANDAPPLICANTS FORLICENSESALL HOLDERS OFCONSTRUCTIONPERMITS FOR ANUCLEAR POWERPLANTALL POWERREACTORLICENSEESALL NON-POWERREACTORLICENSEESALL LICENSEESOF OPERATINGPWRS ANDHOLDERS OFCONSTRUCTIONPERMITS FORPWRSALL OPERATINGLICENSEES,CONSTRUCTIONPERMITHOLDERS, ANDAPPLICANTS FORCONSTRUCTIONPERMITSALL POWERREACTORLICENSEESGL 87-09 SECTIONS 3.0 AND 4.0 OF THESTANDARD TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS ON THEAPPLICABILITY OF LCO ANDSURVEILLANCE REQUIREMENTS06/04/87ALL LIGHTWATER REACTORLICENSEES ANDAPPLICANTSALL POWERREACTORLICENSEESGL 87-08IMPLEMENTATION OF 10 CFR 73.55 05/11/87MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ANDSEARCH REQUIREMENTS

-2 -In addition to the above changes from the original answers desc e nNUREG-1262, as of the date of this letter NRC involvement in qualificationexaminations is under review, and changes to the guidance sented at thepublic meetings is being considered. Therefore, answers i ven in the sectiontitled "Requalifica ion and Renewal" should be conside d subject to change.If you have any quest s, you should contact the NK Project Manager foryour facility.

Sincerely,

Enclosure:

NUREG 1262 rank 3 MiragliaA soc te Director for ProjectsDISTRIBUTION: Of i of Nuclear Reactor RegulationCentral FilesJAWachtelLAWiensJNHannonJWRoeFJMiragliaRStarosteckiDW/nereg 1262/ RRY30u'1&B:D PQ OLB:DLPQ OLB:DLPQ DIRW-LrQ ADITA:NRR ADP: lRJAWachtel:kw LAWiens JNHannon JWRoe RStarostecki FJMirabia9 @ /87 9/ef/87 9/7,1/87 /0/ 7/87 9/ /87 9/ /87 \qOFFICIAL RECORD COPY