ML25273A044

Comment (2) of Thomas Newton on Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors

ML25273A044
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	09/24/2025
From:	Newton T US Dept of Commerce, National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)
To:	Office of Administration
References
NRC-2023-0034, 90FR35558 00002, NUREG-1478 R3
Download: ML25273A044 (1)

Text

PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 9/24/25, 1:32 PM Received: September 24, 2025 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. mfy-3g85-4is7 Comments Due: September 26, 2025 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2023-0034 Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors Comment On: NRC-2023-0034-0001 Draft NUREG: Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors Document: NRC-2023-0034-DRAFT-0002 Comment on FR Doc # 2025-14174 Submitter Information Email:thomas.newton@nist.gov Government Agency Type:Federal Government Agency:NIST General Comment See attached file(s)

Attachments NUREG 1478 Public Comment Letter 9/24/25, 1:33 PM NRC-2023-0034-DRAFT-0002.html file:///C:/Users/BHB1/Downloads/NRC-2023-0034-DRAFT-0002.html 1/1 SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Michele DeSouza, Linh Tran, Mary Neely Comment (2)

Publication Date:

7/28/2025 Citation: 90 FR 35558

September 24, 2025 ATTN: Division of Resource Management and Administration Office of Administration Mail Stop TWFM-7-A60M US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

NBSR Public Comments on Draft Revision 3 of NUREG-1478, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors On behalf of the National Bureau of Standards Reactor (NBSR) at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the draft Revision 3 of NUREG-1478, Operator Licensing Examiner Standards for Research and Test Reactors.

We recognize the importance of consistent examiner standards for research and test reactor operator licensing. We also recognize that the NUREG serves both as a practical tool for NRC examiners and as a key reference for licensees preparing applicants. However, in its current draft form, certain provisions appear to expand beyond the authority granted in 10 CFR Part 55 or present potential inconsistencies that could create confusion for facilities.

Attached in enclosure 1, please find our detailed comments and proposed recommendations for your consideration. These comments focus on ensuring that the NUREG:

• Aligns clearly with regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 55,

• Distinguishes between mandatory requirements and advisory guidance,

• Avoids introducing de facto regulatory requirements through prescriptive shall language where the CFR provides licensee flexibility, and

• Provides clear, non-contradictory direction on standards, forms, and processes used in operator licensing.

We respectfully request that NRC staff address the concerns raised, particularly regarding (1) scope consistency between NUREG-1478 and 10 CFR §55.40(d), (2) use of ANSI/ANS standards not formally endorsed by NRC, (3) medical certification guidance, and (4) examination requirements that may be subjective or difficult to apply consistently across the diverse fleet of non-power research reactors.

We thank the NRC for considering these comments and look forward to further engagement during the revision process. Please contact myself at thomas.newton@nist.gov or Jacob Seiter at jacob.seiter@nist.gov if additional clarification is needed.

Thomas Newton Chief, Reactor Operations and Engineering NIST Center for Neutron Research Enclosures cc:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Michelle DeSouza SIGN

Comment Location Issue/Context Recommendation 1

E.S. 1.2, p.1 lines 3-22 The purpose section of NUREG-1478 states that it implements 10 CFR 55.40(d), which limits scope to exam preparation, proctoring, and grading.

However, the draft NUREG goes beyond this by including guidance on eligibility, initial and renewal applications, medical history, and requalification exams. This expansion can mislead users into interpreting NUREG guidance as binding requirements, even when not specified in the CFR.

Clarify the scope of NUREG-1478 to avoid appearing to impose requirements outside CFR authority. Revise mandatory 'shall' language where requirements are not grounded in regulation, or alternatively, pursue rulemaking to formally align regulations with expanded scope if NRC intends for these provisions to be binding.

2 E.S. 1.2, p.3 lines 45-51 NUREG 1478 references ANSI/ANS-15.4 as a baseline training standard, requiring licensees to comply with the version in their licensing basis.

However, NRC has not endorsed ANSI/ANS-15.4 in 10 CFR Part 55. This creates inconsistencies because facilities may face NRC expectations for compliance with a standard not formally incorporated by reference into regulation.

Revise NUREG to clearly state that ANSI/ANS-15.4 is advisory unless incorporated into a facilitys licensing basis.

NRC should avoid suggesting mandatory compliance with non-endorsed standards.

3 E.S. 2.2, p.1 line 45 The NUREG says detailed NRC Form 398 instructions are contained in the form itself, while the form points back to NUREG-1478 for instructions. This creates a circular reference that can cause confusion for applicants and licensees.

Designate a single authoritative source for instructions. Either ensure Form 398 contains complete instructions directly or append clear completion guidance to NUREG-1478 as an annex.

4 E.S. 2.2, p.3 lines 15-24 NUREG endorses ANSI/ANS-3.4 for medical certification but also allows ANSI/ANS-15.4 as an alternative. Since ANSI/ANS-15.4 is not NRC-endorsed, this presents a contradiction and potential compliance uncertainty for facilities attempting to follow medical guidance.

ANSI/ANS-15.4 may be acknowledged as useful supplemental guidance, but its application should not be implied as a requirement unless incorporated into a facilitys licensing basis.

5 E.S. 2.2, p.3 lines 34-43 Medical reviewers may request additional information, but no timelines are specified for completion of the Establish expected timelines (e.g., 10-20 business days) for

review. Lack of timeliness expectations can delay examinations, negatively affecting operator licensing schedules and facility operations.

medical review processes.

Include an expedited review option when delays would impact facility licensing schedules.

6 E.S. 2.2, p.3 lines 45-50 And E.S. 2.3 lines 25-29 The NUREG requires applicants medical exams to be no more than 6 months old. The language uses 'shall,'

implying a regulatory requirement.

However, no such requirement exists in the CFR. This has created confusion and unnecessary waiver requests at NBSR.

Remove the six-month medical certification requirement from NUREG-1478, as it is not contained in 10 CFR Part

55. Align guidance with current regulatory requirements, allowing facilities to certify applicant medical fitness based solely on regulatory standards and facility processes without imposing additional time-based restrictions.

7 E.S. 2.2, p.4-6 lines 1-50 NUREG requires certification of training consistent with ANSI/ANS-15.4 topics to meet §55.31(a)(4). However, ANSI/ANS-15.4 is not endorsed by NRC, and citing it as prescriptive training content could be interpreted as mandatory.

Clarify ANSI/ANS-15.4 content is illustrative.

Facilities may use equivalent training programs if consistent with §55.31(a)(4). Avoid implying that non-endorsed ANSI/ANS standards are mandatory.

8 E.S. 2.2, p.5 lines 40-50 For instant SRO eligibility, NUREG recommends 1 year at a 'significantly similar' facility. For research reactors, which are highly diverse in design, it is unclear how similarity should be determined, making this criterion difficult to apply fairly.

Clarify that experience at a 'significantly similar' facility is a recommendation, not a requirement. Replace the vague phrase with suggested criteria based on functional equivalence (e.g., control room operations, reactivity management systems),

while maintaining flexibility for facilities to certify applicant readiness under 10 CFR 55.31.

9 E.S. 2.2, p.5 lines 47 - 48 The NUREG states that additional information on the 1 year requirement can be found in ANSI/ANS 15.4, but no Remove the reference to ANSI/ANS 15.4.

such requirement is stated in ANSI/ANS 15.4.

10Property "ANSI code" (as page type) with input value "ANSI/ANS 15.4.</br></br>10" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process. E.S. 2.2, p.4-6 lines 1-50 NUREG introduces specific (and arbitrary) experience requirements for SRO applicants and deferral processes.

These go beyond 10 CFR 55.31, which only requires facility certification of training and experience. This creates contradictions between CFR flexibility and NUREG prescriptiveness and ignores the vast diversity in research and test reactor complexities.

Frame experience requirements as recommendations, not requirements. Deferral should only be used for regulatory requirements.

Should clarify that facilities remain the certifying authority under

§55.31.

11 E.S. 3.1, p.7 lines 24-31 NUREG requires startup and ascension to 'typically maintained' power. For RTRs, typical levels vary widely, and some facilities avoid certain power levels due to xenon or transient issues.

Current wording is too subjective.

Define 'typical power' as a nominal power level regularly authorized and operated by the facility.

Allow flexibility when safety, technical specifications, or administrative operational constraints (such as xenon preclusion limits, thermal transients, or facility-imposed administrative power caps) preclude operation at certain levels. This ensures consistent application across diverse research and test reactors while avoiding undue burden on facilities.

12 E.S. 3.2, p.1 lines 11-26 NUREG restricts who may observe exams. While CE discretion exists, explicit allowance for facility training or management staff to observe would help ensure exam content informs facility training programs.

Permit facility management and training representatives to observe operating and walkthrough examinations under CE approval, provided that exam security and integrity are maintained.

This change would align the operational exam review process with the existing opportunity facilities already have to review written exams prior to administration,

ensuring consistency and allowing facilities to improve training programs based on observed exam content.

13 G 8-1, p.1 lines 38-42 NUREG mistakenly cites 10 CFR 55.5 instead of 55.4 for definitions. This mismatch could create confusion about applicable terms.

Correct the citation to

§55.4 and align definition language to match CFR text.

General 1 Summary of Changes Summary of Rev. 3 emphasizes administrative and form changes. It is unclear whether exam preparation, grading, and criteria were also reviewed, leaving stakeholders uncertain about scope of changes.

Publish a statement clarifying whether exam content, grading, and preparation standards were reviewed in Rev. 3 and what findings were reached.

General 2 Best Practices throughout NUREG The draft presents many best practices using prescriptive 'shall' or requiring exemptions/waivers to deviate. This makes advisory guidance functionally mandatory, which exceeds the authority of a NUREG.

Clearly separate advisory

'best practices' from binding requirements.

Provide a crosswalk table aligning NUREG guidance to CFR requirements for transparency.