Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 3; Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia, 42745-42756 [2016-15547]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
in accordance with 10 CFR part 20 to
ensure that radiation doses are as low as
is reasonably achievable. Accordingly,
no significant radiological or nonradiological impacts are expected to
result from approval of the license
amendment request, and the proposed
action would not significantly
contribute to cumulative impacts at the
NAPS site. Additionally, there would be
no disproportionately high and adverse
impacts on minority and low-income
populations. Furthermore, the NRC staff
determined that this license amendment
request does not have the potential to
cause effects on historic properties,
assuming those were present; therefore,
in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1),
no consultation is required under
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. The NRC staff,
however, reached out to and informed
the Virginia State Historic Preservation
Officer and the Pamunkey Tribe of
Virginia of its determination via letters
dated April 12, 2016, and January 21,
2016, respectively (ADAMS Accession
No. ML16098A212 and ML16020A342,
respectively). The NRC staff also
consulted with the FWS in accordance
with Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. The NRC staff used FWS
Virginia Field Office’s Ecological
Services online project review process.
The self-certification letter dated April
8, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16118A168), stated that ‘‘additional
coordination with this office is not
needed.’’ The NRC completed the
certification process by submitting the
online review package to the FWS
Virginia Field Office via letter dated
May 2, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16120A189). In conclusion, the NRC
staff finds that the proposed action will
not result in a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
Based on its review of the proposed
action, in accordance with the
requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the
NRC has concluded that the license
amendment request for the Dominion’s
SNM License Number SNM–2507 for
the operation of NAPS’ ISFSI located in
Louisa County, Virginia, will not
significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. Therefore, the
NRC has determined, pursuant to 10
CFR 51.31, that preparation of an
environmental impact statement is not
required for the proposed action and a
finding of no significant impacts is
appropriate.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of June, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Craig E. Erlanger,
Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety,
Safeguards, and Environmental Review,
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2016–15573 Filed 6–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026; NRC–
2008–0252]
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 3;
Southern Nuclear Operating Company,
Inc.; Georgia Power Company,
Oglethorpe Power Corporation, MEAG
Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power
SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power SPVP, LLC.,
and the City of Dalton, Georgia
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Grant of exemption; approval of
alternative.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is granting an
exemption from the requirements of the
Commission’s regulations that require a
portion of the operating test, which is
part of the operator licensing
examination, to be administered in a
plant walk-through and approving
alternative examination criteria in
response to a May 27, 2016, request
from Southern Nuclear Operating
Company (SNC or facility licensee).
DATES: This exemption is effective as of
June 24, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2008–0252 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2008–0252. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For
technical questions, contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00117
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42745
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
a document is referenced. The facility
licensee’s exemption request was
submitted to the NRC by letter dated
May 27, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16148A484).
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Kallan, Office of New Reactors, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–2809; email: Paul.Kallan@
nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Southern Nuclear Operating
Company, Inc. (SNC or facility licensee);
Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe
Power Corporation; MEAG Power
SPVM, LLC.; MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC.;
MEAG Power SPVP, LLC.; and the City
of Dalton, Georgia (together, the ‘‘VEGP
Owners’’); are the holders of Combined
License (COL) Nos. NPF–91 and NPF–
92, which authorize the construction
and operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4,
respectively.1 VEGP Units 3 and 4 are
Westinghouse AP1000 pressurizedwater reactors under construction in
Burke County, Georgia. They are colocated with VEGP Units 1 and 2, which
are two operating Westinghouse fourloop pressurized-water reactors.
VEGP Unit 3 is under construction
and most of the plant systems have not
been built. The facility licensee requests
an exemption from the portion of
section 55.45(b) of title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
requiring that the ‘‘the [operator and
senior operator] operating test will be
administered in a plant walkthrough.’’
Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, the
‘‘Commission may, upon application by
an interested person, or upon its own
initiative, grant such exemptions from
the requirements of the regulations in
this part as it determines are authorized
by law and will not endanger life or
property and are otherwise in the public
interest.’’
1 SNC is authorized by the VEGP Owners to
exercise responsibility and control over the
physical construction, operation, and maintenance
of the facility, and is the ‘‘facility licensee’’ as
defined in 10 CFR 55.4 for purposes of this
evaluation.
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
42746
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
As an alternative to the in-plant
methods of testing described in
NUREG–1021, ‘‘Operator Licensing
Examination Standards for Power
Reactors,’’ the facility licensee proposed
that applicants for operator and senior
operator licenses at VEGP Unit 3 be
tested using discussion and
performance methods in combination
with plant layout diagrams, maps,
equipment diagrams, pictures, and
mock-ups. Approval of proposed
alternatives is addressed in NUREG–
1021, ES–201, ‘‘Initial Operator
Licensing Examination Process,’’
Section B, ‘‘Background.’’ As stated
therein,
Facility licensees may propose alternatives
to the examination criteria contained here
and evaluate how the proposed alternatives
provide an acceptable method of complying
with the Commission’s regulations. The NRC
staff will review any proposed alternatives
and make a decision regarding their
acceptability. The NRC will not approve any
alternative that would compromise the
agency’s statutory responsibility to prescribe
uniform conditions for the operator licensing
examinations.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
The facility licensee also requested an
exemption from 10 CFR 55.40(a) and (b),
which require, in part, the Commission
and facility licensees to prepare the
operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45
in accordance with the criteria in
NUREG–1021, because ES–301, Section
D.4.a requires in-plant system job
performance measures (JPMs) be
performed in the plant and Section
D.4.b requires that one JPM be
performed in the radiologically
controlled area (RCA) as part of the
walk-through administered to
applicants during the operating test.
However, the NRC staff determined that
no exemption to the requirement to use
the examination criteria in NUREG–
1021, as stated in 10 CFR 55.40(a) and
(b), is necessary because ES–201 allows
for the consideration of alternatives. In
other words, NUREG–1021 allows
alternative testing methods to be used as
long as an alternative does not
compromise the agency’s statutory
responsibility to prescribe uniform
conditions.
Requirements for Operator Licensing
Examinations
The Commission’s regulations in 10
CFR part 55, ‘‘Operators’ Licenses,’’ in
part establish procedures and criteria for
the issuance of licenses to operators and
senior operators of utilization facilities
licensed under the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR part
52, ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and
Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.’’
Per 10 CFR 55.51, ‘‘Issuance of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
Licenses,’’ ‘‘If the Commission
determines that an applicant for an
operator license or a senior operator
license meets the requirements of the
Act and its regulations, it will issue a
license in the form and containing any
conditions and limitations it considers
appropriate and necessary.’’ Section
55.33(a) states in part that the
Commission will approve an initial
application for a license if it finds that
(1) the applicant’s health is sufficient
and (2) the applicant has passed the
requisite written examination and
operating test in accordance with 10
CFR 55.41, ‘‘Written Examination:
Operators,’’ or 10 CFR 55.43, ‘‘Written
Examination: Senior Operators,’’ and 10
CFR 55.45, ‘‘Operating Tests.’’ These
examinations and tests determine
whether the applicant for an operator
license has learned to operate a facility
competently and safely, and
additionally, in the case of a senior
operator, whether the applicant has
learned to direct the licensed activities
of licensed operators competently and
safely.
The regulations in 10 CFR 55.40(a)
require the Commission to use the
criteria in NUREG–1021, ‘‘Operator
Licensing Examination Standards for
Power Reactors,’’ in effect 6 months
before the examination date to prepare
the written examinations required by 10
CFR 55.41 and 55.43 and the operating
tests required by 10 CFR 55.45; 10 CFR
55.40(a) also requires the Commission to
use the criteria in NUREG–1021 to
evaluate the written examinations and
operating tests prepared by power
reactor facility licensees pursuant to 10
CFR 55.40(b).
As stated in 10 CFR 55.40(b), power
reactor facility licensees may prepare,
proctor, and grade the written
examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41
and 55.43 and may prepare the
operating tests required by 10 CFR
55.45, subject to the following
conditions: (1) They shall prepare the
required examinations and tests in
accordance with the criteria in NUREG–
1021 as described in 10 CFR 55.40(a);
(2) pursuant to 10 CFR 55.49, they shall
establish, implement, and maintain
procedures to control examination
security and integrity; (3) an authorized
representative of the facility licensee
shall approve the required examinations
and tests before they are submitted to
the Commission for review and
approval; and (4) they must receive
Commission approval of their proposed
written examinations and operating
tests.
In accordance with 10 CFR 55.45(a),
‘‘[t]he operating test, to the extent
applicable, requires the applicant to
PO 00000
Frm 00118
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
demonstrate an understanding of and
the ability to perform the actions
necessary to accomplish a
representative sample from among . . .
13 [listed] items.’’ In accordance with 10
CFR 55.45(b):
Implementation—Administration.
The operating test will be administered
in a plant walkthrough and in either—
(1) A simulation facility that the
Commission has approved for use after
application has been made by the
facility licensee under § 55.46(b);
(2) A plant-referenced simulator
(§ 55.46(c)); or
(3) The plant, if approved for use in
the administration of the operating test
by the Commission under § 55.46(b).
The ‘‘in a plant walkthrough’’ portion of
10 CFR 55.45(b) is the subject of the
exemption request.
NUREG–1021, Revision 10 (December
2014) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14352A297) establishes the policies,
procedures, and practices for examining
applicants for operator and senior
operator licenses and licensees pursuant
to 10 CFR part 55; it contains the
examination standards that ensure the
equitable and consistent administration
of operator licensing examinations.
NUREG–1021 is organized by topic into
chapters designated with ‘‘ES,’’ which
stands for ‘‘examination standard.’’ As
relevant here, Chapter 2 (ES–2xx)
addresses initial pre-examination
activities and Chapter 3 (ES–3xx)
addresses initial operating tests. Chapter
3 includes ES–301, ‘‘Preparing Initial
Operating Tests,’’ and ES–302,
‘‘Administering Operating Tests to
Initial License Applicants.’’
NRC examiners and facility licensees
use NUREG–1021 together with the
applicable NRC knowledge and abilities
(K/A) catalog. NUREG–2103,
‘‘Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for
Nuclear Power Plant Operators:
Westinghouse AP1000 PressurizedWater Reactors,’’ was developed
specifically to address the passive
nature of the Westinghouse AP1000
design. The NRC K/A catalogs provide
the basis for the development of
content-valid operator licensing
examinations. NUREG–1021, Appendix
A, ‘‘Overview of Generic Examination
Concepts,’’ Section C.1, ‘‘Content
Validity,’’ describes that a content-valid
examination establishes a link between
the examination and the duties that the
applicants will perform on the job. Also,
this section states,
Test items selected for inclusion in an NRC
examination should be based on K/As
contained in the appropriate K/A catalog.
Testing outside the documented K/As can
jeopardize the content validity of the
examination. Content validity can also be
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
reduced if important K/As are omitted from
the examination.
The NRC K/A catalogs contain K/A
statements that have been rated for their
importance with respect to the safe
operation of the plant. An importance
rating less than 2.5 represents a K/A
statement of limited importance for the
safe operation of a plant. Such
statements are generally considered as
inappropriate content for NRC licensing
examinations.
Operator licensing examinations
developed using the applicable NRC K/
A catalog along with the guidance in
NUREG–1021 will sample the 13 items
listed in 10 CFR 55.45(a) and also
ensure that exam topics are associated
with K/A statements of significant
importance for the safe operation of the
plant. Thus, the examinations will be
content-valid.
The Operating Test
NUREG–1021, Revision 10, ES–301,
‘‘Preparing Initial Operating Tests,’’
Section B, ‘‘Background,’’ describes that
the requirements in 10 CFR 55.45 for the
operating test are met by administering
a simulator test and a walk-through.
The simulator test is typically
administered in a team format with up
to three applicants in the main control
room simulator. It implements Items 1–
8 and 11–13 of 10 CFR 55.45(a) and is
the most performance-based aspect of
the operating test. NRC examiners use
the simulator test to evaluate each
applicant’s ability to safely operate the
plant systems under dynamic,
integrated conditions.
In contrast, the NRC examiners
administer the walk-through to
applicants one-on-one. The walkthrough consists of two parts:
Administrative topics and control room/
in-plant systems. The administrative
topics part of the walk-through
implements Items 9–12 of 10 CFR
55.45(a) and covers K/As associated
with administrative control of the plant.
The control room/in-plant systems part
of the walk-through implements the
requirements of Items 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9
of 10 CFR 55.45(a) and encompasses
several types of systems, including
primary coolant, emergency coolant,
decay heat removal, auxiliary, radiation
monitoring, and instrumentation and
control. ES–301 describes that the
control room/in-plant systems part of
the walk-through is used to determine
whether the applicant has an adequate
knowledge of plant system design and is
able to safely operate those systems.
This part of the walk-through focuses
primarily on those systems with which
licensed operators are most involved
(i.e., those having controls and
indications in the main control room).
To a lesser extent, it also ensures that
the applicant is familiar with the design
and operation of systems located
outside the main control room.
To evaluate an applicant’s knowledge
and abilities relative to control room/inplant systems and competence in the
administrative topics, the NRC
examiners administer JPMs and, when
necessary, ask specific follow-up
questions based on the applicant’s
performance of the JPM. NUREG–1021
defines a JPM as ‘‘[a]n evaluation tool
that requires the applicant to perform
(or simulate) a task that is applicable to
the license level of the examination.’’
Tasks are selected for evaluation in
accordance with ES–301, Section D.4,
‘‘Specific Instructions for the ‘Control
Room/In-Plant Systems’ WalkThrough.’’ This section directs NRC
examiners and facility licensees to
select plant systems from the nine safety
functions listed in the applicable NRC
K/A Catalog. Table 1, ‘‘Plant Systems by
Safety Function,’’ in NUREG–2103
contains a list of the AP1000 plant
systems that are important to each of the
nine major safety functions. ES–301,
Section D.4.a, directs exam writers to (1)
select plant systems from among the
nine safety functions and then (2) for
each plant system selected, select from
either the NRC K/A catalog or the
facility licensee’s site-specific task list a
task for which a JPM exists or can be
developed. NUREG–1021, Appendix C,
‘‘Job Performance Measure Guidelines,’’
contains Form ES–C–2, ‘‘Job
Performance Measure Quality
Checklist,’’ (i.e., the JPM Checklist),
which states that every JPM should,
among other things, (1) be supported by
the facility’s job task analysis (i.e., the
JPM must require applicants to perform
tasks that are included in the facility
licensee’s site-specific task list, which is
the product of its job task analysis) and
(2) be ‘‘operationally important.’’ To be
‘‘operationally important,’’ the JPM
Checklist states that a JPM must meet
the threshold criterion of 2.5 in
NUREG–2103 (i.e., the K/A statement
associated with the JPM must have an
importance rating of 2.5 of higher), or as
determined by the facility and agreed to
by the NRC.
Additionally, ES–301, Section E.2.a,
‘‘NRC Examiner Review,’’ directs
examiners to independently review each
operating test for content, wording,
operational validity (i.e., test items
address an actual or conceivable mental
or psychomotor activity performed on
the job), and level of difficulty using
Form ES–301–3, ‘‘Operating Test
Quality Checklist.’’ JPMs must satisfy
the criteria on Form ES–301–3 and the
JPM Checklist to be administered as part
of an operating test.
Per 10 CFR 55.45(b), the operating test
will be administered in part in a plant
walk-through. Further requirements for
the plant walk-through (i.e., the in-plant
portion of the operating test) are given
in ES–301, Section D.3, ‘‘Specific
Instructions for the ‘Administrative
Topics’ Walk-through,’’ and Section D.4,
‘‘Specific Instructions for the ‘Control
Room/In-Plant Systems’ WalkThrough.’’ Concerning in-plant testing
(i.e. ‘‘plant walk-through’’), ES–301,
Section D.4.a. states that from the nine
safety function groupings identified in
the K/A catalog, the appropriate number
of systems to be evaluated based on the
applicant’s license level is given by the
following table: 2
License level
Control room
In-plant
RO ...........................................................
SRO–I ......................................................
SRO–U ....................................................
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
42747
8 ...............................................................
7 ...............................................................
2 or 3 .......................................................
Total
3 ...............................................................
3 ...............................................................
3 or 2 .......................................................
11
10
5
In addition, ES–301, Section D.4.a
states: ‘‘Each of the control room
systems and evolutions (and separately
each of the in-plant systems and
evolutions) selected for RO and SRO–I
applicants should evaluate a different
safety function, and the same system or
evolution should not be used to evaluate
more than one safety function in each
location.’’
Also, ES–301, Section D.4.b states, ‘‘at
least one of the tasks conducted in the
plant shall evaluate the applicant’s
ability to implement actions required
during an emergency or abnormal
2 In the column labeled ‘‘License Level,’’ ‘‘RO’’
means ‘‘reactor operator’’ or ‘‘operator; ‘‘SRO–I’’
means ‘‘senior reactor operator—instant’’ or ‘‘senior
operator;’’ and ‘‘SRO–U’’ means ‘‘senior reactor
operator—upgrade,’’ and refers to an operator
applying to upgrade to a senior operator license.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00119
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
42748
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
condition, and another shall require the
applicant to enter the RCA.’’
Taken together, the statements in ES–
301, Sections D.4.a and D.4.b show that,
for purposes of testing, the control room
is separate from the plant. Control room
system JPMs are typically performed in
the control room simulator. Because
plant equipment is not controlled from
the simulator, applicants can
demonstrate knowledge and abilities by
using the simulator to perform the
actions necessary to accomplish the task
during the JPM. The simulator provides
feedback to the applicant about the
actions that he or she takes during
performance of the task. For example, if
the applicant operates a switch to start
a pump, the simulator provides
indications to the applicant that will
allow him or her to determine whether
the pump has started.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Administration of In-Plant JPM
Typically, each JPM begins with the
NRC examiner providing the applicant
with a cue sheet, which contains the cue
for the applicant to begin to perform the
task. The cue sheet also provides the
applicant with any initial conditions
that he or she should assume have been
established. After receiving the cue
sheet, the applicant leads the NRC
examiner to the location in the plant
where the task will be performed. Once
the applicant arrives at the correct
location in the plant, he or she uses the
appropriate plant procedure and the
plant equipment in that location as a
prop to describe to the NRC examiner
exactly how he or she would perform
the task. The task is not actually
performed because applicants are not
permitted to operate plant equipment
while performing a JPM; only licensed
control room operators can direct the
operation of plant equipment (i.e., an
NRC examiner cannot direct the
operation of plant equipment).
Therefore, as stated in NUREG–1021,
ES–301, Attachment 2, Page 21, to
successfully complete a JPM in the
plant, the applicant must ‘‘describe
exactly what it takes to perform an
action.’’ As described in NUREG–1021,
Appendix C, ‘‘Job Performance Measure
Guidelines,’’ Section B.4, ‘‘Develop
Examiner Cues,’’ the NRC examiners
develop scripted cues to provide the
applicant with specific feedback on the
equipment’s response(s) to actions the
applicant describes that he or she would
take. These cues are necessary during
JPMs performed in the plant because the
applicant is not actually operating any
equipment in the plant, and therefore
the applicant will not have available the
normal indications that would be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
observed during actual task
performance.
Consider the following example. An
NRC examiner provides the applicant
with a cue sheet that directs him or her
to start a standby diesel generator from
its local control panel, which is located
in the plant (i.e., outside of the main
control room), for a monthly equipment
performance test. The applicant first
must demonstrate to the NRC examiner
that he or she can locate that particular
local control panel in the plant by
walking the NRC examiner to it. Once
at the local control panel, the applicant
must then verbally describe exactly how
he or she would operate the control
panel to perform the task of starting the
standby diesel generator. The applicant
will use the local control panel as a
prop during this discussion (e.g., the
applicant could point to a control
switch on the control panel to show the
NRC examiner that he or she knows
which one must be operated during
actual task performance to raise the
speed of the diesel generator). The
applicant would also need to describe
how he or she would expect the standby
diesel generator to respond to his or her
actions and the indications that he or
she would use to monitor whether the
standby diesel generator responded as
expected. Because the equipment is not
actually being operated during an inplant JPM, the NRC examiner provides
specific feedback regarding the
equipment’s reactions to the actions the
applicant says that he or she would
take.
If the applicant correctly locates the
equipment in the plant and describes
what it takes to perform the task, then
the applicant will successfully complete
the JPM. If the applicant demonstrates a
lack of understanding of the equipment
and procedures, then the NRC examiner
will ask follow-up questions, as
necessary, to confirm whether the
applicant is familiar with the design and
operation of that plant system.
Additionally, at least one JPM must be
performed in the RCA. This provides an
opportunity for the applicant to
demonstrate knowledge of significant
radiation hazards located in radiation
and/or contamination areas inside the
RCA and the ability to perform
procedures to reduce excessive levels of
radiation and to guard against personnel
exposure.
Cold Licensing Process
NUREG–1021, ES–202, Section D.4,
‘‘Cold License Eligibility,’’ states,
‘‘[c]old licensing is the process used
prior to fuel load that provides a
consistent method for operations
personnel to acquire the knowledge and
PO 00000
Frm 00120
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
experience required for licensed
operator duties following fuel load.’’
The cold licensing process is described
in Appendix A, ‘‘Cold License Training
Plan,’’ of NEI 06–13A, ‘‘Template for an
Industry Training Program Description,’’
Revision 2 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML090910554). ‘‘Final Safety
Evaluation for Topical Report NEI 06–
13A, ‘Template for an Industry Training
Program Description,’ ’’ Revision 1,
dated December 5, 2008 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML082950140),
documents the NRC staff’s approval of
NEI 06–13A for use in combined license
applications. The facility licensee
incorporated NEI 06–13A, Revision 2, in
its entirety into the VEGP Units 3 and
4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR), Chapter 13, ‘‘Conduct of
Operation’’ (ADAMS Accession No.
ML15194A468). Section 13.2A.3,
‘‘Conduct of On-the-Job Training (OJT),’’
of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 UFSAR
states, ‘‘[u]ntil plant construction is
completed, acceptable methods for the
conduct of on-the-job training include
discussion, simulation, and use of
mockup equipment and virtual reality
technology.’’ Section 13.2A.6, ‘‘Cold
Licensing Process Applicability and
Termination,’’ provides additional
guidance on the conduct of OJT:
As plant systems, components, and
structures are completed, and as integrated
plant operations begin, the systematic
approach to training process will be used to
adjust cold license class training methods
. . . The purpose is to optimize student
learning using actual in-plant training and
experience opportunities as they become
available.
Additionally, Section 13.2A.7, ‘‘Initial
Licensed Operator Examination
Schedule,’’ states, ‘‘[a]dministration of
[initial] licensed operator examinations
begins approximately 18 months prior
to fuel load.’’
II. Request/Action
By letter from Ms. Karen Fili, Site
Vice President, VEGP Units 3 and 4, to
the NRC dated May 27, 2016, ‘‘Southern
Nuclear Operating Company Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units
3 and 4 Revised Request for Exemption
and RAI Response: Operator Licensing’’
ND–16–0747 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16148A484) (‘‘May 27 letter’’), the
facility licensee stated that it seeks to
begin operator licensing examinations
in July 2016. The May 27 letter
superseded the letter from Ms. Karen
Fili, Site Vice President, VEGP Units 3
and 4, to the NRC dated April 15, 2016
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16109A013)
(i.e., the April 15 letter). The May 27
letter also incorporated the facility
licensee’s responses to two requests for
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
additional information (RAIs) issued in
response to the April 15 letter: RAI #9
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16112A425)
and RAI #10 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16118A183).
The facility licensee (1) applied for
exemptions from the requirements in 10
CFR part 55 that require using a plant
walk-through as part of the operating
test (i.e., in-plant testing); and (2)
proposed alternative examination
criteria and methods.
Application for Exemption
Because VEGP Unit 3 is under
construction and most of the plant
systems have not yet been built, the
facility licensee requests an exemption
from the requirement in 10 CFR 55.45(b)
to administer a portion of the operating
test ‘‘in a plant walkthrough.’’ The
facility licensee also requests an
exemption from 10 CFR 55.40(a) and (b),
which require, in part, the Commission
and facility licensees to prepare the
operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45
in accordance with the criteria in
NUREG–1021, because ES–301, Section
D.4.a and D.4.b require that in-plant
system JPMs be performed in the plant
(and also that one JPM be performed in
the RCA) as part of the walk-through
administered to applicants during the
operating test. However, with respect to
exemptions from 10 CFR 55.40(a) and
(b), the Commission determined that
none were necessary because the
Commission and the facility license
would continue to follow NUREG–1021,
as required by 10 CFR 55.40(a) and (b),
when the Commission and facility
licensee used alternative examination
criteria pursuant to ES–201, Section B,
‘‘Background,’’ of NUREG–1021. The
proposed alternative is discussed below.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Proposed Alternative
The facility licensee proposes an
alternative to administering in-plant
system JPMs in the plant: It proposes to
use ‘‘cold license training plan
evaluation methods’’ to administer inplant system JPMs. Specifically, in
Enclosure 1, ‘‘Plant Walkthrough
Exemptions,’’ Section 3.1,
‘‘Administration of In-Plant JPMs Using
Cold License Training Plan Methods,’’
and Section 3.2, ‘‘RCA Mockup
Alternative to RCA Entry,’’ of the May
27 letter, the facility licensee proposes
using the following ‘‘cold license
training plan evaluation methods’’ in
lieu of the plant and plant equipment to
administer in-plant system JPMs on an
operating test:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
• Plant layout diagrams,3 equipment
diagrams and plant maps—these
documents will be used as necessary
and/or as appropriate to allow an
applicant to demonstrate knowledge of
plant and equipment locations.
Applicants will use these tools to
describe how they would get to the
location of the equipment that is the
subject of the JPM and to identify the
building, elevation, and room number in
the plant where that equipment will be
located when construction is complete.
• Breaker Lab—VEGP has a breaker
lab that contains 6.9kV and 480V
breakers that can be operated by
applicants.
• Maintenance Flow Loop—contains
generic plant equipment, such as
pumps, valves, and instruments for
demonstrating the fundamental
knowledge of operation and monitoring
of plant equipment.
• Remote Shutdown Workstation—
The VEGP Units 3 & 4 simulation
facility includes a Remote Shutdown
Workstation that simulates the controls
located in the Remote Shutdown Room.
• RCA mock-up—A training
environment that allows applicants to
demonstrate knowledge of radiation
control subjects. Standards for entry
into the mock-up RCA are identical to
the actual RCA. The mock-up is used to
train outage workers at VEGP Units 1
and 2. It contains simulated radiation
areas and contaminated areas.
• Discuss method—using the
procedure and props such as plant
layout drawings, mock-ups, maps and
pictures of equipment, the applicant
will describe the actions he or she
would take to operate equipment and
explain how the equipment should
respond to these actions. Discussion can
cover required personal protective
equipment (PPE), actions, system
response and location. Location
information can include specifics such
as building, elevation, and room.
• Perform method—if the JPM is
administered in the breaker lab, the flow
loop trainer, or the remote shutdown
room mock-up, applicants can perform
actions during the JPM as well as
discuss.
• Plant location drawings and
pictures of plant components not
directly related to the task that is the
subject of the JPM will also be made
available to maintain discriminatory
value (i.e., the applicant has the same
opportunity to fail as with an in-plant
JPM by choosing the incorrect
3 A plant layout diagrams typically include
building names, building elevations, and room
numbers.
PO 00000
Frm 00121
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42749
component or by incorrectly simulating
the operation of the correct component).
Expiration of Exemptions and
Alternative
The facility licensee requested that
the exemption expire after the
Commission makes its finding in
accordance with 10 CFR 52.103(g) (‘‘The
licensee shall not operate the facility
until the Commission makes a finding
that the acceptance criteria in the
combined license are met, except for
those acceptance criteria that the
Commission found were met under
§ 52.97(a)(2)’’) for VEGP Unit 3.
III. Discussion
Granting of Exemption
Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, the
Commission may, upon application by
an interested person, or upon its own
initiative, grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR part 55 as it
determines are (1) authorized by law
and (2) will not endanger life or
property and (3) are otherwise in the
public interest.
1. The Exemption Is Authorized by Law
Exemptions are authorized by law
where they are not expressly prohibited
by statute or regulation. A proposed
exemption is implicitly ‘‘authorized by
law’’ if all of the conditions listed
therein are met (i.e., will not endanger
life or property and is otherwise in the
public interest), and no other provision
prohibits, or otherwise restricts, its
application. No provisions in law
restrict or prohibit an exemption to the
requirements concerning the plant walkthrough portion of the operating test; the
‘‘endanger’’ and ‘‘public interest’’
factors are addressed later in this
evaluation.
The regulations in 10 CFR part 55
implement Section 107 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA),
which sets requirements upon the
Commission concerning operators’
licenses and states, in part, that the
Commission shall ‘‘prescribe uniform
conditions for licensing individuals as
operators of any of the various classes
of . . . utilization facilities licensed’’ by
the NRC. These requirements in the
AEA do not expressly prohibit
exemptions to the portion of 10 CFR
55.45(b) addressing in-plant JPMs and
plant walk-throughs.
Preparing and evaluating operator
examinations using the criteria in
NUREG–1021 is a means of ensuring the
equitable and consistent administration
of operator licensing examinations for
all applicants and thus helps to ensure
uniform conditions exist for the
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
42750
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
operator licensing examinations
administered as part of the licensing
process. If the exemption is granted,
there will be no changes to the
preparation and grading of the written
examinations, including the generic
fundamentals examinations. There will
be no changes to the preparation and
evaluation of the simulator portions of
the operating test. There will be no
changes to the administrative portion of
the operating tests. Although under the
exemption part of the in-plant test will
not be administered in the plant, the
preparation and grading of the in-plant
portion will be unchanged.
Upon balancing the overall effect on
uniformity and consistency under the
exemption, the NRC staff concludes that
the uniform conditions will be
maintained; the differences in the
testing under the exemption will not
prevent equitable administration of the
operator licensing examinations or
challenge the basis for the NRC
examiners’ licensing decisions.
Accordingly, the testing will continue to
comply with Section 107 of the AEA.
Accordingly, the NRC staff has
determined that granting of the facility
licensee’s proposed exemption will not
result in a violation of the AEA, or the
Commission’s regulations. Therefore,
the exemption is authorized by law.
2. The Exemption Will Not Endanger
Life or Property
The exemption will not change the
fundamental findings needed to issue an
operator’s or senior operator’s license to
an applicant. As stated in 10 CFR 55.33
‘‘Disposition of an initial application,’’
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
(a) Requirements for the approval of an
initial application. The Commission will
approve an initial application for a license
pursuant to the regulations in this part, if it
finds that—
. . .
(2) Written examination and operating test.
The applicant has passed the requisite
written examination and operating test in
accordance with §§ 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43
and 55.45. These examinations and tests
determine whether the applicant for an
operator’s license has learned to operate a
facility competently and safely, and
additionally, in the case of a senior operator,
whether the applicant has learned to direct
the licensed activities of licensed operators
competently and safely.
Competent and safe operators protect
against endangerment of life or
property. Accordingly, where the tests
adequately determine who is competent,
those tests are protective of and do not
endanger life or property.
The exemption from the requirement
in 10 CFR 55.45(b) that the operating
test be administered partially ‘‘in a plant
walkthrough’’ will not endanger life or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
property mainly because 10 CFR
55.45(a) will still require the applicant
to demonstrate an understanding of and
the ability to perform the actions
necessary to accomplish a
representative sample of tasks. As
required by 10 CFR 55.45(a), the content
of the operating test will continue to be
identified, in part, from learning
objectives derived from a systematic
analysis of licensed operator or senior
operator duties performed by each
facility licensee and contained in its
training program and from information
in the Final Safety Analysis Report,
system description manuals and
operating procedures, facility license
and license amendments, Licensee
Event Reports, and other materials
requested from the facility licensee by
the Commission. Although applicants
will not be tested while physically
located in front of installed in-plant
equipment until the Commission makes
its finding in accordance with 52.103(g),
the knowledge and abilities applicants
must demonstrate to pass the operating
test will not change.
Accordingly, there is no
endangerment of life or property as a
result of the exemption.
3. The Exemption Is Otherwise in the
Public Interest
The Commission’s values guide the
NRC in maintaining certain principles
as it carries out regulatory activities.
These principles focus the NRC on
ensuring safety and security while
appropriately balancing the interests of
the NRC’s stakeholders, including the
public and licensees. These principles
include Independence, Openness,
Efficiency, Clarity, and Reliability.
Whether granting of an exemption to the
requirement to perform in-plant system
JPMs in the plant would be in the public
interest depends on consideration and
balancing of the foregoing factors.
Efficiency
The public and licensees are all
entitled to the best possible
management and administration of
regulatory activities. Regulatory
activities should be consistent with the
degree of risk reduction they achieve.
Where several effective alternatives are
available, the option that minimizes the
use of resources should be adopted.
The NRC staff considered two options
to determine whether one would
minimize the use of resources and/or
minimize risk: (1) Grant the exemption
to the plant walk-through requirement
and administer operator licensing
examinations prior to completion of
VEGP Unit 3, or (2) deny the exemption
and wait until the completion of
PO 00000
Frm 00122
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
construction to administer the operator
licensing examinations. For either
option, the same number of NRC
examiners will be required to
administer the operator licensing
examinations at VEGP Unit 3 prior to
fuel load. Thus, the use of resources is
not minimized by administering exams
before the plant is built. Accordingly,
the exemption is neutral with respect to
the public’s interest in efficiency.
Clarity
Regulations should be coherent,
logical, and practical. There should be
a clear nexus between regulations and
agency goals and objectives whether
explicitly or implicitly stated. Here, the
goal of the agency is to determine
whether applicants for a license have
learned to operate a facility competently
and safely. Because the applicants must
still demonstrate familiarity with the
design and operation of systems located
outside the main control room using the
method proposed by the facility
licensee, it is not necessary to perform
the in-plant system JPMs within the
completed VEGP Unit 3 to achieve this
goal. Accordingly, this factor shows that
the exemption maintains the public
interest in clarity.
Reliability
Regulations should be based on the
best available knowledge from research
and operational experience. Systems
interactions, technological
uncertainties, and the diversity of
licensees and regulatory activities must
all be taken into account so that risks
are maintained at an acceptably low
level. Once established, regulation
should be perceived to be reliable and
not unjustifiably in a state of transition.
Regulatory actions should always be
fully consistent with written regulations
and should be promptly, fairly, and
decisively administered so as to lend
stability to the nuclear operational and
planning processes.
If a sufficient number of applicants do
not pass the exams, then the facility
licensee may not have a sufficient
number of personnel available for fuel
load. If exams commenced in June 2018,
and fuel load was scheduled for late
2018, then there would only be at most
6 months between the time when
licensing decisions would be made and
fuel load. As stated in Enclosure 1,
Section 6.3, ‘‘Otherwise in the Public
Interest,’’ of the May 27 letter, initial
license training lasts approximately 24
months; therefore, 6 months is not
sufficient to license additional
applicants if the needed number of
applicants do not pass the
examinations. Commencing
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
examinations now allows the facility
licensee to better prepare for
contingencies and have more assurance
that a sufficient number of licensed
operators will be available for fuel load.
If a sufficient number of applicants do
not pass the operating test, the facility
licensee can factor the pass/fail
decisions into its operational schedules
starting in 2016, which will provide a
sufficient amount of time for retraining
applicants who do not pass the exam or
training a new class of applicants. Thus,
granting the exemption will lend
stability to the nuclear operational and
planning process in that the individual
operator licensing decisions will be
made much sooner than otherwise
would be possible.
With respect to risk reduction,
granting of the exemption will not
require the NRC examiners or the
applicants to enter the RCA, and
therefore, the risk of radiation exposure
for applicants and NRC examiners will
be reduced to zero. Although NRC
examiners and applicants typically do
not receive any significant exposure to
radiation or contamination during the
conduct of operating tests administered
inside the RCA, the NRC staff concludes
that reducing the risk of exposure to
zero aligns with the agency’s goal of
maintaining exposure to ionizing
radiation as low as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA). Accordingly, this
factor shows that the exemption favors
the public’s interest in reliability.
skills, knowledge, and abilities
necessary to operate the plant safely and
competently. The operator licensing
decisions will continue to be based on
the NRC examiners’ objective, unbiased
assessments of each applicant’s
performance, which will be documented
in accordance with NUREG–1021, ES–
303, ‘‘Documenting and Grading Initial
Operating Tests.’’ Accordingly, this
factor shows that the exemption
maintains the public interest in
independence.
Independence
Nothing but the highest possible
standards of ethical performance and
professionalism should influence
regulation. However, independence
does not imply isolation. All available
facts and opinions must be sought
openly from licensees and other
interested members of the public. The
many and possibly conflicting public
interests involved must be considered.
Final decisions must be based on
objective, unbiased assessments of all
information, and must be documented
with reasons explicitly stated.
With the granting of this exemption,
the NRC staff will still continue to
independently assess whether the
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 have the
Balancing of Factors
Openness
Nuclear regulation is the public’s
business, and it must be transacted
publicly and candidly. The public must
be informed about and have the
opportunity to participate in the
regulatory processes as required by law.
Open channels of communication must
be maintained with Congress, other
government agencies, licensees, and the
public, as well as with the international
nuclear community.
Granting the exemption allows the
portion of the operating test that would
otherwise be performed in the plant to
be administered in a location other than
the plant. The operator licensing
examination process described in
NUREG–1021 will still be followed
using the alternate method proposed by
the facility licensee. Therefore, this
factor shows that the exemption
maintains the public’s interest in
openness.
Accordingly, the balancing of these
factors shows that the exemption is
otherwise in the public interest.
Conclusion
The Commission concludes that the
exemption is (1) authorized by law and
(2) will not endanger life or property
and (3) is otherwise in the public
interest. Therefore, the Commission
grants SNC an exemption from the
requirement of 10 CFR 55.45(b) to
administer a portion of the operating
test ‘‘in a plant walkthrough.’’
Approval of Alternative
NUREG–1021, ES–201, Section B,
‘‘Background,’’ states,
42751
Facility licensees may propose alternatives
to the examination criteria contained here
and evaluate how the proposed alternatives
provide an acceptable method of complying
with the Commission’s regulations. The NRC
staff will review any proposed alternatives
and make a decision regarding their
acceptability. The NRC will not approve any
alternative that would compromise the
agency’s statutory responsibility to prescribe
uniform conditions for the operator licensing
examinations.
As discussed below, the facility
licensee’s proposed alternatives provide
an acceptable method of complying
with the Commission’s regulations and
will not compromise the agency’s
statutory responsibility to prescribe
uniform conditions for the operator
licensing examinations.
NUREG–1021, Appendix A,
‘‘Overview of Generic Examination
Concepts,’’ Section B, ‘‘Background,’’
discusses internal and external
attributes of an examination and their
relationship to uniform conditions. The
internal attributes of an examination
include its level of knowledge (LOK),
level of difficulty (LOD), and the use of
exam question banks. The external
attributes of an examination include the
number and types of items, the length
of the examination, security procedures,
and proctoring instructions. Appendix
A states,
If the internal and external attributes of
examinations are allowed to vary
significantly, the uniform conditions that are
required by Section 107 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, and the basis upon
which the NRC’s licensing decisions rest are
challenged. The NRC must reasonably
control and structure the examination
processes to ensure the integrity of the
licenses it issues.
In order to determine whether
uniform conditions for licensing
individuals as operators and senior
operators at VEGP Unit 3 will be
maintained using the method proposed
by the facility licensee, the NRC staff
performed two actions. First, the NRC
staff identified the differences between
performing in-plant system JPMs in the
plant and the facility licensee’s
proposed method of performing in-plant
system JPMs. These are listed in the
table below.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES
#
Performing in-plant system JPMs in the
plant
Facility licensee’s proposed method of performing
in-plant system JPMs
1 ......
Applicants demonstrate knowledge of equipment locations by walking the NRC examiner to the location of the equipment that
is the subject of the JPM in the plant.
In lieu of walking the NRC examiner to the equipment that is the subject of the JPM, applicants demonstrate knowledge of equipment locations by using plant layout diagrams,
equipment diagrams, and maps to describe to the NRC examiner how they would get
to the location of the plant equipment that is the subject of the JPM. Applicants identify
the building, elevation, and room number associated with the plant equipment that is
the subject of the JPM.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:02 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00123
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
42752
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
SUMMARY OF DIFFERENCES—Continued
#
Performing in-plant system JPMs in the
plant
Facility licensee’s proposed method of performing
in-plant system JPMs
2 ......
Applicants use the plant equipment as a
prop while they describe and how to operate the equipment to perform the task..
Applicants must enter the RCA for at least
one JPM..
In lieu of using plant equipment as a prop, applicants use pictures of equipment or a
mock-up of the equipment as a prop while they describe and simulate how to operate
the equipment to perform the task.
In lieu of entering the RCA in the plant, applicants enter a mock-up RCA for at least one
JPM.
3 ......
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Second, the NRC staff evaluated
whether the differences could cause the
internal and external attributes of the inplant system JPMs administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 prior to the
completion of plant construction to vary
significantly from those administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 after the
completion of construction. The
evaluation is documented below.
Evaluation of Internal Attributes
Level of Knowledge: As stated in
NUREG–1021, Appendix A, Section
C.3.c, ‘‘Level of Knowledge Versus Level
of Difficulty,’’ LOK represents the range
of mental demands required to answer
a question or perform a task. It is a
continuum of mental rigor that ranges
from retrieving fundamental knowledge,
which is a low LOK, to retrieving that
knowledge and also understanding,
analyzing, and synthesizing that
knowledge with other knowledge,
which is a high LOK. Test items that
require a high LOK require multiple
mental processing steps, which are
usually the recall and integration of two
or more pieces of data.
In-plant system JPMs performed in
the plant are high LOK test items
because they require applicants to recall
knowledge such as the location of plant
equipment, which was acquired during
the initial training program, and also to
demonstrate, by walking the NRC
examiner to the correct equipment in
the plant and by describing the actions
that they would take to operate the
equipment, an understanding of and
familiarity with the design and
operation of that equipment. Applicants
must also respond to the cues provided
by the NRC examiner during the JPM.
To successfully complete the JPM, the
applicant must be able to analyze the
information provided by these cues,
apply knowledge of the design and
operation of the equipment to determine
the appropriate action(s), and then
describe the action(s) to the NRC
examiner.
The NRC staff determined that the
three differences listed in Table 2 do not
cause the LOK that an applicant at
VEGP Unit 3 must demonstrate during
in-plant system JPMs administered prior
to the completion of plant construction
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
to vary significantly from the LOK that
an applicant must demonstrate during
in-plant system JPMs performed after
the completion of construction at VEGP
Unit 3 for the following reasons.
• As shown in Difference #1 in Table
2, the facility licensee proposes that
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 demonstrate
knowledge of equipment locations by
using plant layout diagrams, equipment
diagrams, and/or maps to show the NRC
examiner how they would get to the
location in the plant where the task
would be performed. The facility
licensee stated in Enclosure 1, ‘‘Plant
Walkthrough Exemptions,’’ Section 5.5,
‘‘Conclusion,’’ of the May 27 letter that
the proposed method of performing inplant system JPMs will ‘‘not impact the
ability to maintain equitable and
consistent testing under uniform
conditions because license applicants
will be evaluated using the same
methods employed during their
training.’’ As described in Section
13.2A.1, ‘‘Licensed Operator Experience
Requirements Prior To Commercial
Operation,’’ of the VEGP Units 3 and 4
UFSAR, initial license training for all
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 includes a
site layout course, which is described in
NEI 06–13A, Appendix A as a site
familiarization course. Therefore, the
NRC staff concludes that this method
will require applicants at VEGP Unit 3
to recall and demonstrate knowledge of
plant equipment location(s), which were
addressed in the training program, to
successfully complete the JPM even
though the JPM will not be performed
in the plant.
• As shown in Difference #2 in Table
2, the facility licensee proposes that
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 describe how
they will operate the equipment and
explain how they expect the equipment
and systems to respond to their actions
using props such as pictures of the
equipment or a mock-up equipment in
lieu of the actual equipment in the
plant. Just as during a JPM in the plant,
NRC examiners will need to provide
scripted cues to the applicants in
response to the actions the applicants
say that they would take. The applicants
will have to analyze the information
provided by these cues, apply
knowledge of the design and operation
PO 00000
Frm 00124
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the equipment to determine the
appropriate action(s), and then describe
the action(s) to the NRC examiner.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
this method will require applicants at
VEGP Unit 3 to describe the actions that
they would take to operate the
equipment and analyze information
provided by cues to successfully
complete the JPM even though the JPM
will not be performed in the plant.
• As shown in Difference #3 in Table
2, applicants at VEGP Unit 3 will be
required to demonstrate how to enter
the RCA. The facility licensee has
established a mock-up of the RCA that
contains simulated radiation control
areas and contaminated areas, and
‘‘standards for entry into the mockup
RCA are identical to an actual RCA.’’
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
this method will require applicants at
VEGP Unit 3 to demonstrate knowledge
of significant radiation hazards located
in radiation and/or contamination areas
inside the RCA and the ability to
perform procedures to reduce excessive
levels of radiation and to guard against
personnel exposure even though the
JPM will not be performed in the plant.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes
that the facility licensee’s proposed
method of performing in-plant system
JPMs will not cause the LOK of the inplant system JPMs administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 prior to the
completion of plant construction to vary
significantly from those administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 after the
completion of construction.
Level of Difficulty: As stated in
NUREG–1021, Appendix A, Section
C.3.c, ‘‘Level of Knowledge Versus Level
of Difficulty,’’ the NRC examiners
evaluate a test item’s LOD ‘‘to ensure
that the item can help discriminate
between safe and unsafe operators.’’
‘‘Safe operators’’ are the applicants who
pass all portions of the operator
licensing examination with a score of
80% or higher. Thus, NUREG–1021
recommends that the difficulty for
individual test items range between
70% and 90% (i.e., 70–90% of
applicants could successfully perform
the test item). To achieve this, NUREG–
1021 states that the NRC examiners
must integrate the following concepts:
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
The LOK of the test item, the
operational validity of the test item (i.e.,
the test item requires applicants to
perform mental or psychomotor
activities that they will have to perform
on the job), the ability of distractors to
distract the examinees, and the
examinees’ past performance on items
of similar difficulty. Appendix A
acknowledges that ‘‘assigning a level of
difficulty rating to an individual test
item is a somewhat subjective process.’’
The NRC staff determined that the
three differences listed in Table 2 do not
cause the LOD that an applicant at
VEGP Unit 3 must demonstrate during
in-plant system JPMs administered prior
to the completion of plant construction
to vary significantly from the LOD that
an applicant must demonstrate during
in-plant system JPMs performed after
the completion of construction at VEGP
Unit 3 for the following reasons.
• As shown in Difference #1 in Table
2, the facility licensee proposes that
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 demonstrate
knowledge of equipment locations by
using plant layout diagrams, equipment
diagrams, and/or maps to (1) to describe
to the NRC examiner how they would
get to the location of the plant
equipment that is the subject of the JPM
and to (2) correctly identify the
building, elevation of the building, and
room number where the equipment will
be located in VEGP Unit 3.
Additionally, the facility licensee
proposes that ‘‘plant layout diagrams
and/or pictures of components not
directly related to the task will also be
made available to the applicant to
maintain discriminatory value . . .’’
When an in-plant system JPM is
performed in the plant, applicants must
physically walk the NRC examiner to
the correct location in the plant where
the task will be performed. Applicants
must choose the correct location from
among all of the other accessible plant
locations. Similarly, applicants at VEGP
Unit 3 must choose the correct plant
layout diagram(s), equipment diagrams
and/or map(s) from a set of diagrams in
order to show the NRC examiner how
they would locate the equipment in the
plant.
If an applicant at an operating reactor
has spent a sufficient amount of time in
the plant becoming familiar with its
layout and the location of plant
equipment, then walking the NRC
examiner to the correct location during
a JPM in the plant will be a relatively
easy task. Otherwise, this will be a
relatively difficult task, and the
applicant may not be able to perform if
he or she cannot find the equipment
that is the subject of the JPM. Similarly,
if an applicant at VEGP Unit 3 has spent
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
a sufficient amount of time becoming
familiar with the plant layout diagrams
and maps, then using these tools to
show the NRC examiner how he or she
would access the equipment will be a
relatively easy task. Otherwise, this will
be a relatively difficult task, and the
applicant may not be able to continue
with the JPM because he or she will not
successfully demonstrate the ability to
access the equipment. In both cases, the
applicants will either be able to
demonstrate knowledge to the NRC
examiner, or they will not be able to
demonstrate knowledge. The NRC staff
concludes that both methods require
applicants to select the correct location
of plant equipment from among other
choices, and therefore the NRC
examiners will still be able to
discriminate between operators that
have this knowledge and those that do
not, and thus the LOD of the two
methods is comparable.
Also, the NRC staff considered the
implications for the testing process of
physically walking in the plant to a
specific location as compared to using
plant layout diagrams and/or maps to
show and describe the route that would
be taken to find the correct location
impacted LOD. Both methods require an
applicant to recall and show knowledge
of plant locations to the NRC examiner.
However, applicants at plants that have
been constructed will have spent time
becoming familiar with the routes
through the plant that they must take to
access equipment during the conduct of
OJT in the plant. During an in-plant
system JPM in the plant, they will likely
be able to recall the route(s) they have
previously traveled by relying on
unique visual clues available in the
plant such as signage and various access
control points that they must pass
through to navigate their path to the
equipment that is the subject of the JPM.
They may also possibly rely on muscle
memory to some extent to locate the
equipment that is the subject of the JPM.
Additionally, NUREG–1021, Appendix
E, ‘‘Policies and Guidelines for Taking
NRC Examinations,’’ contains directions
that NRC examiners provide to
applicants and licensed operators prior
to every NRC examination. Appendix E,
Section C.3, states,
The operating test is considered ‘‘open
reference.’’ The reference materials that are
normally available to operators in the facility
and control room (including calibration
curves, previous log entries, piping and
instrumentation diagrams, calculation sheets,
and procedures) are also available to you
during the operating test.
Plant layout diagrams and site maps are
normally available to operators. Thus,
applicants at plants that have been
PO 00000
Frm 00125
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42753
constructed may use plant layout
diagrams and site maps to help them to
locate the equipment that is the subject
of the JPM if they cannot recall the
location of the equipment from memory.
Unlike applicants at plants that have
been constructed, the applicants at
VEGP Unit 3 that take operator licensing
examinations prior to the completion of
plant construction will only use plant
layout diagrams and maps to describe
the route they would take to access the
plant equipment. This method requires
applicants to stand in front of a
document and trace or identify the route
that would be taken. This method is
different from actually walking to a
location in the plant because (1) visual
clues that would be available to
applicants in the plant will not be
available, and (2) this method requires
applicants to use fewer motor skills, and
thus it is not likely that applicants will
be able to use any muscle memory. This
may increase the LOD. However,
Section 13.2A.1, ‘‘Licensed Operator
Experience Requirements Prior To
Commercial Operation,’’ of the VEGP
Units 3 and 4 UFSAR states that all
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 must
complete a site layout course. Also, the
facility licensee stated in Enclosure 1,
‘‘Plant Walkthrough Exemptions,’’
Section 5.5, ‘‘Conclusion,’’ of the May
27 letter that the proposed method of
performing in-plant system JPMs will
‘‘not impact the ability to maintain
equitable and consistent testing under
uniform conditions because license
applicants will be evaluated using the
same methods employed during their
training.’’ The NRC staff concludes that
any increase in LOD as a result of only
using plant layout diagrams and maps to
demonstrate knowledge of locations will
be offset by the fact that the applicants
will have been specifically trained on
the locations of plant equipment with
these tools.
• As shown in Difference #2 in Table
2, applicants will use pictures of
equipment or a mock-up of the
equipment as a prop while they describe
and simulate how to operate the
equipment to perform the task. Instead
of pointing to a piece of equipment in
the plant and verbally describing how to
operate it, the applicant will either
point to a diagram or picture of the
equipment as a prop while describing
how to operate it or use a piece of mockup equipment to actually perform the
task required by the JPM. The facility
licensee proposes that diagrams and
pictures of components not directly
related to the task will also be made
available to the applicant so that the
applicant must make a choice. The NRC
staff determined that the facility
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
42754
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
licensee’s proposed method of
performing in-plant system JPMs will
require an applicant to select the correct
piece of equipment from among other
options, which is similar to having to
make that selection in the plant.
Therefore, the NRC examiners will still
be able to discriminate between
operators that have this knowledge and
those that do not, and thus the LOD of
the two methods is comparable.
The NRC staff also considered the
difference in the quality of the props
used in the facility licensee’s proposed
method of performing in-plant system
JPMs compared to the quality of the
plant equipment as a prop. Enclosure 2,
‘‘Response to NRC Request for
Additional Information No.9,’’ contains
Table E2–1, which lists tasks from the
VEGP Units 3 and 4 site-specific task
list that could be a JPM. The NRC staff
reviewed Table E2–1 and determined
that the breaker lab, the maintenance
flow loop trainer, the RCA mock-up,
and the Remote Shutdown Workstation
available in the VEGP training facilities
could be used as props during some
JPMs. These tools are realistic
representations of certain pieces of plant
equipment and are therefore equivalent
to the actual plant equipment.
However, these tools will not be able
to be used for every in-plant system JPM
that could be developed because the
tasks listed in Table E2–1 include tasks
unrelated to breaker operation, remote
shutdown, or plant components
modeled in the flow loop trainer (e.g.,
Table E2–1 includes a task to ‘‘startup
the in core instrument system’’). In
these instances, the facility licensee
proposes to use equipment diagrams or
pictures of plant equipment as props. In
these cases, the pictures may not be the
same size as the actual plant equipment,
or, in the case of equipment diagrams,
they might not provide the same visual
detail to an applicant that would be
provided by the actual plant equipment.
This could make these props more
difficult to use compared to the actual
plant equipment. However, because the
facility licensee proposes to use the
same props during the administration of
in-plant system JPMs that have been
used in the training program, the NRC
staff concludes that any increase in LOD
as a result of using pictures or
equipment diagrams to demonstrate
knowledge will be offset by the fact that
the applicants have used these props
during their training.
• As shown in Difference #3 in Table
2, applicants will have to enter a mockup of the RCA for at least one in-plant
JPM. As stated in the facility licensee’s
submittal, the ‘‘standards for entry into
the mockup RCA are identical to an
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
actual RCA.’’ Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that this difference has no
impact on the LOD of the in-plant
system JPMs because there is no
difference between demonstrating the
ability to enter the actual RCA and
demonstrating the ability to enter a
mock-up of the RCA.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes
that the facility licensee’s proposed
method of performing in-plant system
JPMs will not cause the LOD of the inplant system JPMs administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 prior to the
completion of plant construction to vary
significantly from those administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 after the
completion of construction.
Use of Exam Banks: NUREG–1021,
Form ES–301–2, ‘‘Control Room/InPlant Systems Outline,’’ contains
criteria for the use of JPMs in the facility
licensee’s exam bank that may be used
on operator licensing examinations. In
Enclosure 1, ‘‘Plant Walkthrough
Exemptions,’’ Section 5.3,
‘‘Discrimination Validity,’’ the facility
licensee stated, ‘‘[a]ny questions,
discussions, or other cold licensing
methods used for task evaluation will
have no impact on how the examination
bank is used.’’ The NRC staff also
concluded that the facility licensee’s
proposed method of performing in-plant
system JPMs does not impact the use of
exam banks because the facility
licensee’s proposed method of
administering JPMs has nothing to do
with the selection of JPMs from its exam
bank.
In summary, the NRC staff concludes
that the facility licensee’s proposed
method of performing in-plant system
JPMs does not significantly impact the
internal attributes of the in-plant system
JPMs that will be administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 prior to the
completion of plant construction as
compared to the in-plant system JPMs
administered to applicants at plants that
have been constructed.
Evaluation of External Attributes
The external attributes of an
examination include the number and
types of items (e.g., in-plant system
JPMs), the length of the examination,
security procedures, and proctoring
instructions. The facility licensee is not
proposing to alter the number or types
of items, the length of the examination,
security procedures, or proctoring
instructions for any part of the operator
licensing examination. Therefore, the
NRC staff concludes that the external
attributes of the operator licensing
examinations that will be administered
to applicants at VEGP Unit 3 prior to the
completion of plant construction will be
PO 00000
Frm 00126
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the same external attributes of the
operator licensing examinations
administered to applicants at plants that
have been constructed.
Summary of Evaluation of Internal and
External Attributes
In summary, the NRC staff concludes
that the facility licensee’s proposed
method of performing in-plant system
JPMs does not cause the internal and
external attributes of the in-plant system
JPMs administered to applicants at
VEGP Unit 3 prior to the completion of
plant construction to vary significantly
from those administered to applicants at
VEGP Unit 3 after the completion of
construction. Because in-plant system
JPMs are a portion of the operator
licensing examination, the NRC staff
also concludes that the facility
licensee’s proposed method does not
cause the internal or external attributes
of the operator licensing examinations
that will be administered to applicants
at VEGP Unit 3 prior to the completion
of plant construction to vary
significantly from those administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 after the
completion of construction.
Impact of Plant Construction on
Developing Content-Valid Exams
In Enclosure 2, ‘‘Response to NRC
Request for Additional Information No.
9’’ of the May 27 letter, the facility
licensee stated that some in-plant tasks
on the site-specific task list that have an
importance rating of 2.5 or higher
cannot be used to develop a JPM at this
time. Because not all plant systems have
been constructed or turned over to the
facility licensee from the vendor, some
procedures are not available at this time.
A JPM cannot be performed without a
procedure. If the pool of in-plant tasks
that could be used to develop a JPM is
limited, then it is possible that
important K/As could be omitted from
the operating test, which would reduce
the content validity of the exam.
In Enclosure 2 of the May 27 letter,
the facility licensee provided Table E2–
1. Of the tasks that the facility licensee
included in Table E2–1, the NRC staff
found that 101 of 109 possible tasks
have procedures available at this time
and therefore can be used to develop an
in-plant system JPM; only eight tasks do
not have procedures available at this
time and thus cannot be used to develop
an in-plant system JPM. Of these eight
tasks, the NRC staff compared the safety
functions listed for each of the eight
tasks with the safety functions listed in
Table 1, ‘‘Plant Systems by Safety
Function,’’ in NUREG–2103. The NRC
staff found that of the eight tasks, two
are associated with plant systems
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
related to Safety Function #6, Electrical;
five are associated with plant service
systems related to Safety Function #8,
Plant Service Systems; and one is
associated with a plant system related to
Safety Function #4, Heat Removal from
the Reactor Core.
The NRC staff reviewed the 101 tasks
that do have procedures available at this
time and found that multiple tasks
associated with the plant systems
related to these safety functions as well
as the other safety functions listed in
Table 1 in NUREG–2103 can be used at
this time to develop an in-plant system
JPM. Thus, although these eight tasks
may be excluded from the sample at this
time, there is still a diverse set of other
tasks that can be used to test an
applicant’s knowledge and abilities
related to the operation of plant systems
associated with each of the nine safety
functions. Additionally, because the
plant systems associated with Safety
Functions #4, 6, and 8 are primarily
operated from the main control room,
the criteria in NUREG–1021, ES–301,
Section D.4.a, which states that ‘‘each of
the control room systems and evolutions
(and separately each of the in-plant
systems and evolutions) selected . . .
should evaluate a different safety
function . . .,’’ will still be followed,
thus ensuring that the content of each
operating test sufficiently samples the
safety functions and K/As. Thus, the
NRC staff concludes that the elimination
of these eight tasks from the possible
pool of in-plant system JPMs at this time
does not result in any omission of K/As
from the operator licensing
examinations administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 at this time.
Therefore, the examinations
administered to applicants at VEGP Unit
3 at this time will be content-valid
examinations.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Impact of Alternative Method on
Knowledge Retention and Learning New
Knowledge
The NRC staff has assurance that all
applicants who become licensed at
VEGP Unit 3 will be trained and tested
on new procedures and tasks as they
become available. This is because all
licensed operators are subject to the
requalification requirements of 10 CFR
55.59. These requirements include
additional operating tests as follows:
(a) Requalification requirements. Each
licensee shall—
(1) Successfully complete a requalification
program developed by the facility licensee
that has been approved by the Commission.
This program shall be conducted for a
continuous period not to exceed 24 months
in duration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
(2) Pass a comprehensive requalification
written examination and an annual operating
test.
(i) The written examination will sample
the items specified in §§ 55.41 and 55.43 of
this part, to the extent applicable to the
facility, the licensee, and any limitation of
the license under § 55.53(c) of this part.
(ii) The operating test will require the
operator or senior operator to demonstrate an
understanding of and the ability to perform
the actions necessary to accomplish a
comprehensive sample of items specified in
§ 55.45(a) (2) through (13) inclusive to the
extent applicable to the facility.
In other words, the applicants who
receive a license will be required to take
additional operating tests to maintain
the license as part of the licensed
operator requalification program.
Therefore, the requalification program
gives the NRC staff additional
confidence that, as the plant is
completed, operators will be continually
trained and tested on operationallyimportant in-plant systems and tasks
directed by procedures that have not
been developed yet.
NUREG–1021 provides guidance for
applicants transitioning from the initial
license program to the requalification
program: ES–605, Section C.1.b, states,
‘‘Newly licensed operators must enter
the requalification training and
examination program promptly upon
receiving their licenses.’’ Also, ES–204
states that the region may administer a
license examination to an applicant who
has not satisfied the applicable training
or experience requirements at the time
of the examination, but is expected to
complete them shortly thereafter. These
requirements in NUREG–1021 help to
ensure that the period of time between
completing all of the requirements to be
licensed, which includes completing the
initial license training program and
passing the operator licensing
examination, and entering a
requalification program that meets the
requirements of 10 CFR 55.59 is
minimized so that applicants (1) receive
refresher training on topics learned in
the initial training program, which
ensures knowledge retention of
operationally-important topics, and (2)
receive training on new operationallyimportant topics as they become
available (e.g., new procedures and
tasks).
In Enclosure 1, ‘‘Plant Walkthrough
Exemptions,’’ Section 6.3, ‘‘Otherwise
in the Public Interest,’’ of the May 27
letter, the facility licensee stated that
applicants ‘‘enrolled in an initial license
training (ILT) program are training as a
full-time job and cannot participate in
completing the required 6 months of
meaningful work experience.’’ As
described in NEI 06–13A, Appendix A,
PO 00000
Frm 00127
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
42755
applicants in the cold licensing process
must complete at least 6 months of
‘‘practical and meaningful work
experience’’ as part of the experience
requirements for an operator’s license.
Applicants that do not complete any of
a portion of the 6 months of practical
and meaningful work assignments prior
to enrolling in the ILT program will
have to do so before the NRC issues a
license. Therefore, some applicants at
VEGP Unit 3 may not complete the
requirements to be licensed ‘‘shortly’’
after taking the operator licensing
examination. Because these applicants
would not yet be licensed, under NRC
regulations they would not be required
to be enrolled in a training program that
meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59,
‘‘Requalification.’’
Although these applicants will be
participating in practical and
meaningful work assignments to gain
experience with the AP1000 design,
these assignments do not necessarily
ensure that these applicants will receive
refresher training on topics learned in
the ILT program or receive training on
new topics as they become available. In
accordance with 10 CFR 55.51,
If the Commission determines that an
applicant for an operator license or a senior
operator license meets the requirements of
the Act and its regulations, it will issue a
license in the form and containing any
conditions and limitations it considers
appropriate and necessary.
Therefore, the Commission may find it
necessary to issue licenses with any
conditions or limitations that may be
necessary to ensure that the applicants
have retained knowledge and learned
new operationally-important topics
during the time between completion of
the operator licensing examination and
issuance of the license.
In summary, as allowed by NUREG–
1021, ES–201, Section B, ‘‘Background,’’
with its exemption request, the facility
licensee proposed alternatives to the
examination criteria contained in
NUREG–1021 with respect to the inplant/plant walk-through portions of the
operating test. The NRC staff reviewed
the proposed method of administering
in-plant system JPMs described in
Enclosure 1 of the May 27 letter. For the
reasons described above, the NRC staff
concluded that the proposed
alternatives provide an acceptable
method of complying with the
Commission’s regulations, as exempted.
If, in the future, the facility licensee
desires to implement an approach that
differs from the alternative described in
the May 27 letter, then it should seek
approval from the NRC.
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
42756
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2016 / Notices
Limitations and Expiration
The facility licensee requested the
exemption from the regulation that
requires the operating test to be
administered in a plant walk-through
because of the incomplete construction
of the plant. As construction of different
sections of the facility becomes
substantially complete and in-plant
systems, components, and structures
(SSCs) near completion, usage of this
exemption will become unnecessary for
those areas and SSCs. Accordingly, on
a case-by-case basis, for those tasks that
are selected to be part of an operating
task in accordance with NUREG–1021,
ES–301, Section D.4.a and Section
D.4.b, where it is possible to both
perform on-the-job training in the plant
and administer part of an operating test
in a plant walk-through, as determined
by the NRC examiners, this exemption
may not be used. Furthermore, this
exemption will finally expire and may
no longer be used upon the
Commission’s finding for VEGP Unit 3
in accordance with 10 CFR 52.103(g)
(‘‘The licensee shall not operate the
facility until the Commission makes a
finding that the acceptance criteria in
the combined license are met, except for
those acceptance criteria that the
Commission found were met under
§ 52.97(a)(2).’’).
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
Environmental Consideration
This exemption allows one, two, or
three of the required in-plant system
JPMs to be performed using discussion
and performance methods in
combination with plant layout
diagrams, maps, equipment diagrams,
pictures, and mock-ups in lieu of plant
equipment. The NRC staff evaluated
whether there would be significant
environmental impacts associated with
the issuance of the requested
exemptions. The NRC staff determined
the proposed action fits a category of
actions that do not require an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement.
For the following reasons, this
exemption meets the eligibility criteria
of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) for a categorical
exclusion. There is no significant
hazards consideration related to this
exemption. The NRC staff has also
determined that the exemption involves
no significant increase in the amounts,
and no significant change in the types,
of any effluents that may be released
offsite; that there is no significant
increase in individual or cumulative
public or occupational radiation
exposure; that there is no significant
construction impact; and that there is no
significant increase in the potential for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:01 Jun 29, 2016
Jkt 238001
or consequences from radiological
accidents. Finally, the requirements to
which the exemption applies involve
qualification requirements. Accordingly,
the exemption meets the eligibility
criteria for categorical exclusion set
forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Pursuant to
10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental
impact statement or environmental
assessment need be prepared in
connection with the issuance of the
exemption.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has
determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
55.11, issuing this exemption from the
requirement in 55.45(b) to administer a
portion of the operating test in a plant
walk-through is authorized by law and
will not endanger life or property and is
otherwise in the public interest. The
Commission also has approved the
facility licensee’s proposed alternative
to the examination criteria in NUREG–
1021, ES–301, Section D.4.a and Section
D.4.b and therefore will allow one, two,
or three of the required in-plant system
JPMs to be performed using discussion
and performance methods in
combination with plant layout
diagrams, maps, equipment diagrams,
pictures, and mock-ups in lieu of plant
equipment until the Commission makes
a finding for VEGP Unit 3 that
acceptance criteria in the combined
license are met in accordance with 10
CFR 52.103(g).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day
of June, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel S. Lee,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of New
Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2016–15547 Filed 6–29–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–369 and 50–370; NRC–
2016–0128]
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC and North
Carolina Electric Membership
Corporation; Acceptance Criteria for
Emergency Core Cooling Systems,
McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2,
Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and
2
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Exemption; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing an
exemption in response to a license
amendment request and exemption
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00128
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
request dated August 20, 2015, from
Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Duke
Energy or the licensee) from portions of
the regulations to support the use of fuel
that is clad in Optimized ZIRLOTM.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2016–0128 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly-available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2016–0128. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, select
‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then
select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced (if it is available in
ADAMS) is provided the first time that
it is mentioned in this document.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: G.
Edward Miller, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555–0001; telephone: 301–415–2481,
email Ed.Miller@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Duke Energy is the holder of Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF–9, NPF–17,
NPF–35, and NPF–52, which authorize
operation of the McGuire Nuclear
Station (MNS), Units 1 and 2, and
Catawba Nuclear Station (CNS), Units 1
and 2. The licenses provide, among
other things, that each facility is subject
to all rules, regulations, and orders of
the NRC now or hereafter in effect.
The MNS and CNS units are
pressurized-water reactor located in
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina,
and York County, South Carolina,
respectively.
II. Request/Action
Pursuant to section 50.12 of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10
E:\FR\FM\30JNN1.SGM
30JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42745-42756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15547]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026; NRC-2008-0252]
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Unit 3; Southern Nuclear
Operating Company, Inc.; Georgia Power Company, Oglethorpe Power
Corporation, MEAG Power SPVM, LLC., MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC., MEAG Power
SPVP, LLC., and the City of Dalton, Georgia
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Grant of exemption; approval of alternative.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is granting an
exemption from the requirements of the Commission's regulations that
require a portion of the operating test, which is part of the operator
licensing examination, to be administered in a plant walk-through and
approving alternative examination criteria in response to a May 27,
2016, request from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC or facility
licensee).
DATES: This exemption is effective as of June 24, 2016.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0252. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each document referenced (if it is available
in ADAMS) is provided the first time that a document is referenced. The
facility licensee's exemption request was submitted to the NRC by
letter dated May 27, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16148A484).
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Kallan, Office of New Reactors,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
telephone: 301-415-2809; email: Paul.Kallan@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC or facility
licensee); Georgia Power Company; Oglethorpe Power Corporation; MEAG
Power SPVM, LLC.; MEAG Power SPVJ, LLC.; MEAG Power SPVP, LLC.; and the
City of Dalton, Georgia (together, the ``VEGP Owners''); are the
holders of Combined License (COL) Nos. NPF-91 and NPF-92, which
authorize the construction and operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4,
respectively.\1\ VEGP Units 3 and 4 are Westinghouse AP1000
pressurized-water reactors under construction in Burke County, Georgia.
They are co-located with VEGP Units 1 and 2, which are two operating
Westinghouse four-loop pressurized-water reactors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SNC is authorized by the VEGP Owners to exercise
responsibility and control over the physical construction,
operation, and maintenance of the facility, and is the ``facility
licensee'' as defined in 10 CFR 55.4 for purposes of this
evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VEGP Unit 3 is under construction and most of the plant systems
have not been built. The facility licensee requests an exemption from
the portion of section 55.45(b) of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), requiring that the ``the [operator and senior
operator] operating test will be administered in a plant walkthrough.''
Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, the ``Commission may, upon application by an
interested person, or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions
from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it determines
are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property and are
otherwise in the public interest.''
[[Page 42746]]
As an alternative to the in-plant methods of testing described in
NUREG-1021, ``Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power
Reactors,'' the facility licensee proposed that applicants for operator
and senior operator licenses at VEGP Unit 3 be tested using discussion
and performance methods in combination with plant layout diagrams,
maps, equipment diagrams, pictures, and mock-ups. Approval of proposed
alternatives is addressed in NUREG-1021, ES-201, ``Initial Operator
Licensing Examination Process,'' Section B, ``Background.'' As stated
therein,
Facility licensees may propose alternatives to the examination
criteria contained here and evaluate how the proposed alternatives
provide an acceptable method of complying with the Commission's
regulations. The NRC staff will review any proposed alternatives and
make a decision regarding their acceptability. The NRC will not
approve any alternative that would compromise the agency's statutory
responsibility to prescribe uniform conditions for the operator
licensing examinations.
The facility licensee also requested an exemption from 10 CFR
55.40(a) and (b), which require, in part, the Commission and facility
licensees to prepare the operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45 in
accordance with the criteria in NUREG-1021, because ES-301, Section
D.4.a requires in-plant system job performance measures (JPMs) be
performed in the plant and Section D.4.b requires that one JPM be
performed in the radiologically controlled area (RCA) as part of the
walk-through administered to applicants during the operating test.
However, the NRC staff determined that no exemption to the requirement
to use the examination criteria in NUREG-1021, as stated in 10 CFR
55.40(a) and (b), is necessary because ES-201 allows for the
consideration of alternatives. In other words, NUREG-1021 allows
alternative testing methods to be used as long as an alternative does
not compromise the agency's statutory responsibility to prescribe
uniform conditions.
Requirements for Operator Licensing Examinations
The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR part 55, ``Operators'
Licenses,'' in part establish procedures and criteria for the issuance
of licenses to operators and senior operators of utilization facilities
licensed under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR
part 52, ``Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power
Plants.'' Per 10 CFR 55.51, ``Issuance of Licenses,'' ``If the
Commission determines that an applicant for an operator license or a
senior operator license meets the requirements of the Act and its
regulations, it will issue a license in the form and containing any
conditions and limitations it considers appropriate and necessary.''
Section 55.33(a) states in part that the Commission will approve an
initial application for a license if it finds that (1) the applicant's
health is sufficient and (2) the applicant has passed the requisite
written examination and operating test in accordance with 10 CFR 55.41,
``Written Examination: Operators,'' or 10 CFR 55.43, ``Written
Examination: Senior Operators,'' and 10 CFR 55.45, ``Operating Tests.''
These examinations and tests determine whether the applicant for an
operator license has learned to operate a facility competently and
safely, and additionally, in the case of a senior operator, whether the
applicant has learned to direct the licensed activities of licensed
operators competently and safely.
The regulations in 10 CFR 55.40(a) require the Commission to use
the criteria in NUREG-1021, ``Operator Licensing Examination Standards
for Power Reactors,'' in effect 6 months before the examination date to
prepare the written examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.43 and
the operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45; 10 CFR 55.40(a) also
requires the Commission to use the criteria in NUREG-1021 to evaluate
the written examinations and operating tests prepared by power reactor
facility licensees pursuant to 10 CFR 55.40(b).
As stated in 10 CFR 55.40(b), power reactor facility licensees may
prepare, proctor, and grade the written examinations required by 10 CFR
55.41 and 55.43 and may prepare the operating tests required by 10 CFR
55.45, subject to the following conditions: (1) They shall prepare the
required examinations and tests in accordance with the criteria in
NUREG-1021 as described in 10 CFR 55.40(a); (2) pursuant to 10 CFR
55.49, they shall establish, implement, and maintain procedures to
control examination security and integrity; (3) an authorized
representative of the facility licensee shall approve the required
examinations and tests before they are submitted to the Commission for
review and approval; and (4) they must receive Commission approval of
their proposed written examinations and operating tests.
In accordance with 10 CFR 55.45(a), ``[t]he operating test, to the
extent applicable, requires the applicant to demonstrate an
understanding of and the ability to perform the actions necessary to
accomplish a representative sample from among . . . 13 [listed]
items.'' In accordance with 10 CFR 55.45(b):
Implementation--Administration. The operating test will be
administered in a plant walkthrough and in either--
(1) A simulation facility that the Commission has approved for use
after application has been made by the facility licensee under Sec.
55.46(b);
(2) A plant-referenced simulator (Sec. 55.46(c)); or
(3) The plant, if approved for use in the administration of the
operating test by the Commission under Sec. 55.46(b).
The ``in a plant walkthrough'' portion of 10 CFR 55.45(b) is the
subject of the exemption request.
NUREG-1021, Revision 10 (December 2014) (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14352A297) establishes the policies, procedures, and practices for
examining applicants for operator and senior operator licenses and
licensees pursuant to 10 CFR part 55; it contains the examination
standards that ensure the equitable and consistent administration of
operator licensing examinations. NUREG-1021 is organized by topic into
chapters designated with ``ES,'' which stands for ``examination
standard.'' As relevant here, Chapter 2 (ES-2xx) addresses initial pre-
examination activities and Chapter 3 (ES-3xx) addresses initial
operating tests. Chapter 3 includes ES-301, ``Preparing Initial
Operating Tests,'' and ES-302, ``Administering Operating Tests to
Initial License Applicants.''
NRC examiners and facility licensees use NUREG-1021 together with
the applicable NRC knowledge and abilities (K/A) catalog. NUREG-2103,
``Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power Plant Operators:
Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors,'' was developed
specifically to address the passive nature of the Westinghouse AP1000
design. The NRC K/A catalogs provide the basis for the development of
content-valid operator licensing examinations. NUREG-1021, Appendix A,
``Overview of Generic Examination Concepts,'' Section C.1, ``Content
Validity,'' describes that a content-valid examination establishes a
link between the examination and the duties that the applicants will
perform on the job. Also, this section states,
Test items selected for inclusion in an NRC examination should
be based on K/As contained in the appropriate K/A catalog. Testing
outside the documented K/As can jeopardize the content validity of
the examination. Content validity can also be
[[Page 42747]]
reduced if important K/As are omitted from the examination.
The NRC K/A catalogs contain K/A statements that have been rated for
their importance with respect to the safe operation of the plant. An
importance rating less than 2.5 represents a K/A statement of limited
importance for the safe operation of a plant. Such statements are
generally considered as inappropriate content for NRC licensing
examinations.
Operator licensing examinations developed using the applicable NRC
K/A catalog along with the guidance in NUREG-1021 will sample the 13
items listed in 10 CFR 55.45(a) and also ensure that exam topics are
associated with K/A statements of significant importance for the safe
operation of the plant. Thus, the examinations will be content-valid.
The Operating Test
NUREG-1021, Revision 10, ES-301, ``Preparing Initial Operating
Tests,'' Section B, ``Background,'' describes that the requirements in
10 CFR 55.45 for the operating test are met by administering a
simulator test and a walk-through.
The simulator test is typically administered in a team format with
up to three applicants in the main control room simulator. It
implements Items 1-8 and 11-13 of 10 CFR 55.45(a) and is the most
performance-based aspect of the operating test. NRC examiners use the
simulator test to evaluate each applicant's ability to safely operate
the plant systems under dynamic, integrated conditions.
In contrast, the NRC examiners administer the walk-through to
applicants one-on-one. The walk-through consists of two parts:
Administrative topics and control room/in-plant systems. The
administrative topics part of the walk-through implements Items 9-12 of
10 CFR 55.45(a) and covers K/As associated with administrative control
of the plant. The control room/in-plant systems part of the walk-
through implements the requirements of Items 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of 10
CFR 55.45(a) and encompasses several types of systems, including
primary coolant, emergency coolant, decay heat removal, auxiliary,
radiation monitoring, and instrumentation and control. ES-301 describes
that the control room/in-plant systems part of the walk-through is used
to determine whether the applicant has an adequate knowledge of plant
system design and is able to safely operate those systems. This part of
the walk-through focuses primarily on those systems with which licensed
operators are most involved (i.e., those having controls and
indications in the main control room). To a lesser extent, it also
ensures that the applicant is familiar with the design and operation of
systems located outside the main control room.
To evaluate an applicant's knowledge and abilities relative to
control room/in-plant systems and competence in the administrative
topics, the NRC examiners administer JPMs and, when necessary, ask
specific follow-up questions based on the applicant's performance of
the JPM. NUREG-1021 defines a JPM as ``[a]n evaluation tool that
requires the applicant to perform (or simulate) a task that is
applicable to the license level of the examination.''
Tasks are selected for evaluation in accordance with ES-301,
Section D.4, ``Specific Instructions for the `Control Room/In-Plant
Systems' Walk-Through.'' This section directs NRC examiners and
facility licensees to select plant systems from the nine safety
functions listed in the applicable NRC K/A Catalog. Table 1, ``Plant
Systems by Safety Function,'' in NUREG-2103 contains a list of the
AP1000 plant systems that are important to each of the nine major
safety functions. ES-301, Section D.4.a, directs exam writers to (1)
select plant systems from among the nine safety functions and then (2)
for each plant system selected, select from either the NRC K/A catalog
or the facility licensee's site-specific task list a task for which a
JPM exists or can be developed. NUREG-1021, Appendix C, ``Job
Performance Measure Guidelines,'' contains Form ES-C-2, ``Job
Performance Measure Quality Checklist,'' (i.e., the JPM Checklist),
which states that every JPM should, among other things, (1) be
supported by the facility's job task analysis (i.e., the JPM must
require applicants to perform tasks that are included in the facility
licensee's site-specific task list, which is the product of its job
task analysis) and (2) be ``operationally important.'' To be
``operationally important,'' the JPM Checklist states that a JPM must
meet the threshold criterion of 2.5 in NUREG-2103 (i.e., the K/A
statement associated with the JPM must have an importance rating of 2.5
of higher), or as determined by the facility and agreed to by the NRC.
Additionally, ES-301, Section E.2.a, ``NRC Examiner Review,''
directs examiners to independently review each operating test for
content, wording, operational validity (i.e., test items address an
actual or conceivable mental or psychomotor activity performed on the
job), and level of difficulty using Form ES-301-3, ``Operating Test
Quality Checklist.'' JPMs must satisfy the criteria on Form ES-301-3
and the JPM Checklist to be administered as part of an operating test.
Per 10 CFR 55.45(b), the operating test will be administered in
part in a plant walk-through. Further requirements for the plant walk-
through (i.e., the in-plant portion of the operating test) are given in
ES-301, Section D.3, ``Specific Instructions for the `Administrative
Topics' Walk-through,'' and Section D.4, ``Specific Instructions for
the `Control Room/In-Plant Systems' Walk-Through.'' Concerning in-plant
testing (i.e. ``plant walk-through''), ES-301, Section D.4.a. states
that from the nine safety function groupings identified in the K/A
catalog, the appropriate number of systems to be evaluated based on the
applicant's license level is given by the following table: \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the column labeled ``License Level,'' ``RO'' means
``reactor operator'' or ``operator; ``SRO-I'' means ``senior reactor
operator--instant'' or ``senior operator;'' and ``SRO-U'' means
``senior reactor operator--upgrade,'' and refers to an operator
applying to upgrade to a senior operator license.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
License level Control room In-plant Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RO...................................... 8......................... 3......................... 11
SRO-I................................... 7......................... 3......................... 10
SRO-U................................... 2 or 3.................... 3 or 2.................... 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, ES-301, Section D.4.a states: ``Each of the control
room systems and evolutions (and separately each of the in-plant
systems and evolutions) selected for RO and SRO-I applicants should
evaluate a different safety function, and the same system or evolution
should not be used to evaluate more than one safety function in each
location.''
Also, ES-301, Section D.4.b states, ``at least one of the tasks
conducted in the plant shall evaluate the applicant's ability to
implement actions required during an emergency or abnormal
[[Page 42748]]
condition, and another shall require the applicant to enter the RCA.''
Taken together, the statements in ES-301, Sections D.4.a and D.4.b
show that, for purposes of testing, the control room is separate from
the plant. Control room system JPMs are typically performed in the
control room simulator. Because plant equipment is not controlled from
the simulator, applicants can demonstrate knowledge and abilities by
using the simulator to perform the actions necessary to accomplish the
task during the JPM. The simulator provides feedback to the applicant
about the actions that he or she takes during performance of the task.
For example, if the applicant operates a switch to start a pump, the
simulator provides indications to the applicant that will allow him or
her to determine whether the pump has started.
Administration of In-Plant JPM
Typically, each JPM begins with the NRC examiner providing the
applicant with a cue sheet, which contains the cue for the applicant to
begin to perform the task. The cue sheet also provides the applicant
with any initial conditions that he or she should assume have been
established. After receiving the cue sheet, the applicant leads the NRC
examiner to the location in the plant where the task will be performed.
Once the applicant arrives at the correct location in the plant, he or
she uses the appropriate plant procedure and the plant equipment in
that location as a prop to describe to the NRC examiner exactly how he
or she would perform the task. The task is not actually performed
because applicants are not permitted to operate plant equipment while
performing a JPM; only licensed control room operators can direct the
operation of plant equipment (i.e., an NRC examiner cannot direct the
operation of plant equipment). Therefore, as stated in NUREG-1021, ES-
301, Attachment 2, Page 21, to successfully complete a JPM in the
plant, the applicant must ``describe exactly what it takes to perform
an action.'' As described in NUREG-1021, Appendix C, ``Job Performance
Measure Guidelines,'' Section B.4, ``Develop Examiner Cues,'' the NRC
examiners develop scripted cues to provide the applicant with specific
feedback on the equipment's response(s) to actions the applicant
describes that he or she would take. These cues are necessary during
JPMs performed in the plant because the applicant is not actually
operating any equipment in the plant, and therefore the applicant will
not have available the normal indications that would be observed during
actual task performance.
Consider the following example. An NRC examiner provides the
applicant with a cue sheet that directs him or her to start a standby
diesel generator from its local control panel, which is located in the
plant (i.e., outside of the main control room), for a monthly equipment
performance test. The applicant first must demonstrate to the NRC
examiner that he or she can locate that particular local control panel
in the plant by walking the NRC examiner to it. Once at the local
control panel, the applicant must then verbally describe exactly how he
or she would operate the control panel to perform the task of starting
the standby diesel generator. The applicant will use the local control
panel as a prop during this discussion (e.g., the applicant could point
to a control switch on the control panel to show the NRC examiner that
he or she knows which one must be operated during actual task
performance to raise the speed of the diesel generator). The applicant
would also need to describe how he or she would expect the standby
diesel generator to respond to his or her actions and the indications
that he or she would use to monitor whether the standby diesel
generator responded as expected. Because the equipment is not actually
being operated during an in-plant JPM, the NRC examiner provides
specific feedback regarding the equipment's reactions to the actions
the applicant says that he or she would take.
If the applicant correctly locates the equipment in the plant and
describes what it takes to perform the task, then the applicant will
successfully complete the JPM. If the applicant demonstrates a lack of
understanding of the equipment and procedures, then the NRC examiner
will ask follow-up questions, as necessary, to confirm whether the
applicant is familiar with the design and operation of that plant
system.
Additionally, at least one JPM must be performed in the RCA. This
provides an opportunity for the applicant to demonstrate knowledge of
significant radiation hazards located in radiation and/or contamination
areas inside the RCA and the ability to perform procedures to reduce
excessive levels of radiation and to guard against personnel exposure.
Cold Licensing Process
NUREG-1021, ES-202, Section D.4, ``Cold License Eligibility,''
states, ``[c]old licensing is the process used prior to fuel load that
provides a consistent method for operations personnel to acquire the
knowledge and experience required for licensed operator duties
following fuel load.'' The cold licensing process is described in
Appendix A, ``Cold License Training Plan,'' of NEI 06-13A, ``Template
for an Industry Training Program Description,'' Revision 2 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML090910554). ``Final Safety Evaluation for Topical
Report NEI 06-13A, `Template for an Industry Training Program
Description,' '' Revision 1, dated December 5, 2008 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML082950140), documents the NRC staff's approval of NEI 06-13A for
use in combined license applications. The facility licensee
incorporated NEI 06-13A, Revision 2, in its entirety into the VEGP
Units 3 and 4 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR), Chapter 13,
``Conduct of Operation'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML15194A468). Section
13.2A.3, ``Conduct of On-the-Job Training (OJT),'' of the VEGP Units 3
and 4 UFSAR states, ``[u]ntil plant construction is completed,
acceptable methods for the conduct of on-the-job training include
discussion, simulation, and use of mockup equipment and virtual reality
technology.'' Section 13.2A.6, ``Cold Licensing Process Applicability
and Termination,'' provides additional guidance on the conduct of OJT:
As plant systems, components, and structures are completed, and
as integrated plant operations begin, the systematic approach to
training process will be used to adjust cold license class training
methods . . . The purpose is to optimize student learning using
actual in-plant training and experience opportunities as they become
available.
Additionally, Section 13.2A.7, ``Initial Licensed Operator
Examination Schedule,'' states, ``[a]dministration of [initial]
licensed operator examinations begins approximately 18 months prior to
fuel load.''
II. Request/Action
By letter from Ms. Karen Fili, Site Vice President, VEGP Units 3
and 4, to the NRC dated May 27, 2016, ``Southern Nuclear Operating
Company Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Units 3 and 4 Revised
Request for Exemption and RAI Response: Operator Licensing'' ND-16-0747
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16148A484) (``May 27 letter''), the facility
licensee stated that it seeks to begin operator licensing examinations
in July 2016. The May 27 letter superseded the letter from Ms. Karen
Fili, Site Vice President, VEGP Units 3 and 4, to the NRC dated April
15, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16109A013) (i.e., the April 15 letter).
The May 27 letter also incorporated the facility licensee's responses
to two requests for
[[Page 42749]]
additional information (RAIs) issued in response to the April 15
letter: RAI #9 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16112A425) and RAI #10 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16118A183).
The facility licensee (1) applied for exemptions from the
requirements in 10 CFR part 55 that require using a plant walk-through
as part of the operating test (i.e., in-plant testing); and (2)
proposed alternative examination criteria and methods.
Application for Exemption
Because VEGP Unit 3 is under construction and most of the plant
systems have not yet been built, the facility licensee requests an
exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR 55.45(b) to administer a
portion of the operating test ``in a plant walkthrough.'' The facility
licensee also requests an exemption from 10 CFR 55.40(a) and (b), which
require, in part, the Commission and facility licensees to prepare the
operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45 in accordance with the
criteria in NUREG-1021, because ES-301, Section D.4.a and D.4.b require
that in-plant system JPMs be performed in the plant (and also that one
JPM be performed in the RCA) as part of the walk-through administered
to applicants during the operating test. However, with respect to
exemptions from 10 CFR 55.40(a) and (b), the Commission determined that
none were necessary because the Commission and the facility license
would continue to follow NUREG-1021, as required by 10 CFR 55.40(a) and
(b), when the Commission and facility licensee used alternative
examination criteria pursuant to ES-201, Section B, ``Background,'' of
NUREG-1021. The proposed alternative is discussed below.
Proposed Alternative
The facility licensee proposes an alternative to administering in-
plant system JPMs in the plant: It proposes to use ``cold license
training plan evaluation methods'' to administer in-plant system JPMs.
Specifically, in Enclosure 1, ``Plant Walkthrough Exemptions,'' Section
3.1, ``Administration of In-Plant JPMs Using Cold License Training Plan
Methods,'' and Section 3.2, ``RCA Mockup Alternative to RCA Entry,'' of
the May 27 letter, the facility licensee proposes using the following
``cold license training plan evaluation methods'' in lieu of the plant
and plant equipment to administer in-plant system JPMs on an operating
test:
Plant layout diagrams,\3\ equipment diagrams and plant
maps--these documents will be used as necessary and/or as appropriate
to allow an applicant to demonstrate knowledge of plant and equipment
locations. Applicants will use these tools to describe how they would
get to the location of the equipment that is the subject of the JPM and
to identify the building, elevation, and room number in the plant where
that equipment will be located when construction is complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ A plant layout diagrams typically include building names,
building elevations, and room numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Breaker Lab--VEGP has a breaker lab that contains 6.9kV
and 480V breakers that can be operated by applicants.
Maintenance Flow Loop--contains generic plant equipment,
such as pumps, valves, and instruments for demonstrating the
fundamental knowledge of operation and monitoring of plant equipment.
Remote Shutdown Workstation--The VEGP Units 3 & 4
simulation facility includes a Remote Shutdown Workstation that
simulates the controls located in the Remote Shutdown Room.
RCA mock-up--A training environment that allows applicants
to demonstrate knowledge of radiation control subjects. Standards for
entry into the mock-up RCA are identical to the actual RCA. The mock-up
is used to train outage workers at VEGP Units 1 and 2. It contains
simulated radiation areas and contaminated areas.
Discuss method--using the procedure and props such as
plant layout drawings, mock-ups, maps and pictures of equipment, the
applicant will describe the actions he or she would take to operate
equipment and explain how the equipment should respond to these
actions. Discussion can cover required personal protective equipment
(PPE), actions, system response and location. Location information can
include specifics such as building, elevation, and room.
Perform method--if the JPM is administered in the breaker
lab, the flow loop trainer, or the remote shutdown room mock-up,
applicants can perform actions during the JPM as well as discuss.
Plant location drawings and pictures of plant components
not directly related to the task that is the subject of the JPM will
also be made available to maintain discriminatory value (i.e., the
applicant has the same opportunity to fail as with an in-plant JPM by
choosing the incorrect component or by incorrectly simulating the
operation of the correct component).
Expiration of Exemptions and Alternative
The facility licensee requested that the exemption expire after the
Commission makes its finding in accordance with 10 CFR 52.103(g) (``The
licensee shall not operate the facility until the Commission makes a
finding that the acceptance criteria in the combined license are met,
except for those acceptance criteria that the Commission found were met
under Sec. 52.97(a)(2)'') for VEGP Unit 3.
III. Discussion
Granting of Exemption
Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, the Commission may, upon application by
an interested person, or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from
the requirements of 10 CFR part 55 as it determines are (1) authorized
by law and (2) will not endanger life or property and (3) are otherwise
in the public interest.
1. The Exemption Is Authorized by Law
Exemptions are authorized by law where they are not expressly
prohibited by statute or regulation. A proposed exemption is implicitly
``authorized by law'' if all of the conditions listed therein are met
(i.e., will not endanger life or property and is otherwise in the
public interest), and no other provision prohibits, or otherwise
restricts, its application. No provisions in law restrict or prohibit
an exemption to the requirements concerning the plant walk-through
portion of the operating test; the ``endanger'' and ``public interest''
factors are addressed later in this evaluation.
The regulations in 10 CFR part 55 implement Section 107 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), which sets requirements
upon the Commission concerning operators' licenses and states, in part,
that the Commission shall ``prescribe uniform conditions for licensing
individuals as operators of any of the various classes of . . .
utilization facilities licensed'' by the NRC. These requirements in the
AEA do not expressly prohibit exemptions to the portion of 10 CFR
55.45(b) addressing in-plant JPMs and plant walk-throughs.
Preparing and evaluating operator examinations using the criteria
in NUREG-1021 is a means of ensuring the equitable and consistent
administration of operator licensing examinations for all applicants
and thus helps to ensure uniform conditions exist for the
[[Page 42750]]
operator licensing examinations administered as part of the licensing
process. If the exemption is granted, there will be no changes to the
preparation and grading of the written examinations, including the
generic fundamentals examinations. There will be no changes to the
preparation and evaluation of the simulator portions of the operating
test. There will be no changes to the administrative portion of the
operating tests. Although under the exemption part of the in-plant test
will not be administered in the plant, the preparation and grading of
the in-plant portion will be unchanged.
Upon balancing the overall effect on uniformity and consistency
under the exemption, the NRC staff concludes that the uniform
conditions will be maintained; the differences in the testing under the
exemption will not prevent equitable administration of the operator
licensing examinations or challenge the basis for the NRC examiners'
licensing decisions. Accordingly, the testing will continue to comply
with Section 107 of the AEA. Accordingly, the NRC staff has determined
that granting of the facility licensee's proposed exemption will not
result in a violation of the AEA, or the Commission's regulations.
Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
2. The Exemption Will Not Endanger Life or Property
The exemption will not change the fundamental findings needed to
issue an operator's or senior operator's license to an applicant. As
stated in 10 CFR 55.33 ``Disposition of an initial application,''
(a) Requirements for the approval of an initial application. The
Commission will approve an initial application for a license
pursuant to the regulations in this part, if it finds that--
. . .
(2) Written examination and operating test. The applicant has
passed the requisite written examination and operating test in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and 55.45. These
examinations and tests determine whether the applicant for an
operator's license has learned to operate a facility competently and
safely, and additionally, in the case of a senior operator, whether
the applicant has learned to direct the licensed activities of
licensed operators competently and safely.
Competent and safe operators protect against endangerment of life
or property. Accordingly, where the tests adequately determine who is
competent, those tests are protective of and do not endanger life or
property.
The exemption from the requirement in 10 CFR 55.45(b) that the
operating test be administered partially ``in a plant walkthrough''
will not endanger life or property mainly because 10 CFR 55.45(a) will
still require the applicant to demonstrate an understanding of and the
ability to perform the actions necessary to accomplish a representative
sample of tasks. As required by 10 CFR 55.45(a), the content of the
operating test will continue to be identified, in part, from learning
objectives derived from a systematic analysis of licensed operator or
senior operator duties performed by each facility licensee and
contained in its training program and from information in the Final
Safety Analysis Report, system description manuals and operating
procedures, facility license and license amendments, Licensee Event
Reports, and other materials requested from the facility licensee by
the Commission. Although applicants will not be tested while physically
located in front of installed in-plant equipment until the Commission
makes its finding in accordance with 52.103(g), the knowledge and
abilities applicants must demonstrate to pass the operating test will
not change.
Accordingly, there is no endangerment of life or property as a
result of the exemption.
3. The Exemption Is Otherwise in the Public Interest
The Commission's values guide the NRC in maintaining certain
principles as it carries out regulatory activities. These principles
focus the NRC on ensuring safety and security while appropriately
balancing the interests of the NRC's stakeholders, including the public
and licensees. These principles include Independence, Openness,
Efficiency, Clarity, and Reliability. Whether granting of an exemption
to the requirement to perform in-plant system JPMs in the plant would
be in the public interest depends on consideration and balancing of the
foregoing factors.
Efficiency
The public and licensees are all entitled to the best possible
management and administration of regulatory activities. Regulatory
activities should be consistent with the degree of risk reduction they
achieve. Where several effective alternatives are available, the option
that minimizes the use of resources should be adopted.
The NRC staff considered two options to determine whether one would
minimize the use of resources and/or minimize risk: (1) Grant the
exemption to the plant walk-through requirement and administer operator
licensing examinations prior to completion of VEGP Unit 3, or (2) deny
the exemption and wait until the completion of construction to
administer the operator licensing examinations. For either option, the
same number of NRC examiners will be required to administer the
operator licensing examinations at VEGP Unit 3 prior to fuel load.
Thus, the use of resources is not minimized by administering exams
before the plant is built. Accordingly, the exemption is neutral with
respect to the public's interest in efficiency.
Clarity
Regulations should be coherent, logical, and practical. There
should be a clear nexus between regulations and agency goals and
objectives whether explicitly or implicitly stated. Here, the goal of
the agency is to determine whether applicants for a license have
learned to operate a facility competently and safely. Because the
applicants must still demonstrate familiarity with the design and
operation of systems located outside the main control room using the
method proposed by the facility licensee, it is not necessary to
perform the in-plant system JPMs within the completed VEGP Unit 3 to
achieve this goal. Accordingly, this factor shows that the exemption
maintains the public interest in clarity.
Reliability
Regulations should be based on the best available knowledge from
research and operational experience. Systems interactions,
technological uncertainties, and the diversity of licensees and
regulatory activities must all be taken into account so that risks are
maintained at an acceptably low level. Once established, regulation
should be perceived to be reliable and not unjustifiably in a state of
transition. Regulatory actions should always be fully consistent with
written regulations and should be promptly, fairly, and decisively
administered so as to lend stability to the nuclear operational and
planning processes.
If a sufficient number of applicants do not pass the exams, then
the facility licensee may not have a sufficient number of personnel
available for fuel load. If exams commenced in June 2018, and fuel load
was scheduled for late 2018, then there would only be at most 6 months
between the time when licensing decisions would be made and fuel load.
As stated in Enclosure 1, Section 6.3, ``Otherwise in the Public
Interest,'' of the May 27 letter, initial license training lasts
approximately 24 months; therefore, 6 months is not sufficient to
license additional applicants if the needed number of applicants do not
pass the examinations. Commencing
[[Page 42751]]
examinations now allows the facility licensee to better prepare for
contingencies and have more assurance that a sufficient number of
licensed operators will be available for fuel load. If a sufficient
number of applicants do not pass the operating test, the facility
licensee can factor the pass/fail decisions into its operational
schedules starting in 2016, which will provide a sufficient amount of
time for retraining applicants who do not pass the exam or training a
new class of applicants. Thus, granting the exemption will lend
stability to the nuclear operational and planning process in that the
individual operator licensing decisions will be made much sooner than
otherwise would be possible.
With respect to risk reduction, granting of the exemption will not
require the NRC examiners or the applicants to enter the RCA, and
therefore, the risk of radiation exposure for applicants and NRC
examiners will be reduced to zero. Although NRC examiners and
applicants typically do not receive any significant exposure to
radiation or contamination during the conduct of operating tests
administered inside the RCA, the NRC staff concludes that reducing the
risk of exposure to zero aligns with the agency's goal of maintaining
exposure to ionizing radiation as low as is reasonably achievable
(ALARA). Accordingly, this factor shows that the exemption favors the
public's interest in reliability.
Independence
Nothing but the highest possible standards of ethical performance
and professionalism should influence regulation. However, independence
does not imply isolation. All available facts and opinions must be
sought openly from licensees and other interested members of the
public. The many and possibly conflicting public interests involved
must be considered. Final decisions must be based on objective,
unbiased assessments of all information, and must be documented with
reasons explicitly stated.
With the granting of this exemption, the NRC staff will still
continue to independently assess whether the applicants at VEGP Unit 3
have the skills, knowledge, and abilities necessary to operate the
plant safely and competently. The operator licensing decisions will
continue to be based on the NRC examiners' objective, unbiased
assessments of each applicant's performance, which will be documented
in accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-303, ``Documenting and Grading
Initial Operating Tests.'' Accordingly, this factor shows that the
exemption maintains the public interest in independence.
Openness
Nuclear regulation is the public's business, and it must be
transacted publicly and candidly. The public must be informed about and
have the opportunity to participate in the regulatory processes as
required by law. Open channels of communication must be maintained with
Congress, other government agencies, licensees, and the public, as well
as with the international nuclear community.
Granting the exemption allows the portion of the operating test
that would otherwise be performed in the plant to be administered in a
location other than the plant. The operator licensing examination
process described in NUREG-1021 will still be followed using the
alternate method proposed by the facility licensee. Therefore, this
factor shows that the exemption maintains the public's interest in
openness.
Balancing of Factors
Accordingly, the balancing of these factors shows that the
exemption is otherwise in the public interest.
Conclusion
The Commission concludes that the exemption is (1) authorized by
law and (2) will not endanger life or property and (3) is otherwise in
the public interest. Therefore, the Commission grants SNC an exemption
from the requirement of 10 CFR 55.45(b) to administer a portion of the
operating test ``in a plant walkthrough.''
Approval of Alternative
NUREG-1021, ES-201, Section B, ``Background,'' states,
Facility licensees may propose alternatives to the examination
criteria contained here and evaluate how the proposed alternatives
provide an acceptable method of complying with the Commission's
regulations. The NRC staff will review any proposed alternatives and
make a decision regarding their acceptability. The NRC will not
approve any alternative that would compromise the agency's statutory
responsibility to prescribe uniform conditions for the operator
licensing examinations.
As discussed below, the facility licensee's proposed alternatives
provide an acceptable method of complying with the Commission's
regulations and will not compromise the agency's statutory
responsibility to prescribe uniform conditions for the operator
licensing examinations.
NUREG-1021, Appendix A, ``Overview of Generic Examination
Concepts,'' Section B, ``Background,'' discusses internal and external
attributes of an examination and their relationship to uniform
conditions. The internal attributes of an examination include its level
of knowledge (LOK), level of difficulty (LOD), and the use of exam
question banks. The external attributes of an examination include the
number and types of items, the length of the examination, security
procedures, and proctoring instructions. Appendix A states,
If the internal and external attributes of examinations are
allowed to vary significantly, the uniform conditions that are
required by Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and the basis upon which the NRC's licensing decisions rest
are challenged. The NRC must reasonably control and structure the
examination processes to ensure the integrity of the licenses it
issues.
In order to determine whether uniform conditions for licensing
individuals as operators and senior operators at VEGP Unit 3 will be
maintained using the method proposed by the facility licensee, the NRC
staff performed two actions. First, the NRC staff identified the
differences between performing in-plant system JPMs in the plant and
the facility licensee's proposed method of performing in-plant system
JPMs. These are listed in the table below.
Summary of Differences
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performing in-plant
# system JPMs in the Facility licensee's proposed method
plant of performing in-plant system JPMs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1........... Applicants In lieu of walking the NRC examiner
demonstrate to the equipment that is the
knowledge of subject of the JPM, applicants
equipment locations demonstrate knowledge of equipment
by walking the NRC locations by using plant layout
examiner to the diagrams, equipment diagrams, and
location of the maps to describe to the NRC
equipment that is examiner how they would get to the
the subject of the location of the plant equipment
JPM in the plant. that is the subject of the JPM.
Applicants identify the building,
elevation, and room number
associated with the plant
equipment that is the subject of
the JPM.
[[Page 42752]]
2........... Applicants use the In lieu of using plant equipment as
plant equipment as a a prop, applicants use pictures of
prop while they equipment or a mock-up of the
describe and how to equipment as a prop while they
operate the describe and simulate how to
equipment to perform operate the equipment to perform
the task.. the task.
3........... Applicants must enter In lieu of entering the RCA in the
the RCA for at least plant, applicants enter a mock-up
one JPM.. RCA for at least one JPM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, the NRC staff evaluated whether the differences could cause
the internal and external attributes of the in-plant system JPMs
administered to applicants at VEGP Unit 3 prior to the completion of
plant construction to vary significantly from those administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 after the completion of construction. The
evaluation is documented below.
Evaluation of Internal Attributes
Level of Knowledge: As stated in NUREG-1021, Appendix A, Section
C.3.c, ``Level of Knowledge Versus Level of Difficulty,'' LOK
represents the range of mental demands required to answer a question or
perform a task. It is a continuum of mental rigor that ranges from
retrieving fundamental knowledge, which is a low LOK, to retrieving
that knowledge and also understanding, analyzing, and synthesizing that
knowledge with other knowledge, which is a high LOK. Test items that
require a high LOK require multiple mental processing steps, which are
usually the recall and integration of two or more pieces of data.
In-plant system JPMs performed in the plant are high LOK test items
because they require applicants to recall knowledge such as the
location of plant equipment, which was acquired during the initial
training program, and also to demonstrate, by walking the NRC examiner
to the correct equipment in the plant and by describing the actions
that they would take to operate the equipment, an understanding of and
familiarity with the design and operation of that equipment. Applicants
must also respond to the cues provided by the NRC examiner during the
JPM. To successfully complete the JPM, the applicant must be able to
analyze the information provided by these cues, apply knowledge of the
design and operation of the equipment to determine the appropriate
action(s), and then describe the action(s) to the NRC examiner.
The NRC staff determined that the three differences listed in Table
2 do not cause the LOK that an applicant at VEGP Unit 3 must
demonstrate during in-plant system JPMs administered prior to the
completion of plant construction to vary significantly from the LOK
that an applicant must demonstrate during in-plant system JPMs
performed after the completion of construction at VEGP Unit 3 for the
following reasons.
As shown in Difference #1 in Table 2, the facility
licensee proposes that applicants at VEGP Unit 3 demonstrate knowledge
of equipment locations by using plant layout diagrams, equipment
diagrams, and/or maps to show the NRC examiner how they would get to
the location in the plant where the task would be performed. The
facility licensee stated in Enclosure 1, ``Plant Walkthrough
Exemptions,'' Section 5.5, ``Conclusion,'' of the May 27 letter that
the proposed method of performing in-plant system JPMs will ``not
impact the ability to maintain equitable and consistent testing under
uniform conditions because license applicants will be evaluated using
the same methods employed during their training.'' As described in
Section 13.2A.1, ``Licensed Operator Experience Requirements Prior To
Commercial Operation,'' of the VEGP Units 3 and 4 UFSAR, initial
license training for all applicants at VEGP Unit 3 includes a site
layout course, which is described in NEI 06-13A, Appendix A as a site
familiarization course. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that this
method will require applicants at VEGP Unit 3 to recall and demonstrate
knowledge of plant equipment location(s), which were addressed in the
training program, to successfully complete the JPM even though the JPM
will not be performed in the plant.
As shown in Difference #2 in Table 2, the facility
licensee proposes that applicants at VEGP Unit 3 describe how they will
operate the equipment and explain how they expect the equipment and
systems to respond to their actions using props such as pictures of the
equipment or a mock-up equipment in lieu of the actual equipment in the
plant. Just as during a JPM in the plant, NRC examiners will need to
provide scripted cues to the applicants in response to the actions the
applicants say that they would take. The applicants will have to
analyze the information provided by these cues, apply knowledge of the
design and operation of the equipment to determine the appropriate
action(s), and then describe the action(s) to the NRC examiner.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that this method will require
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 to describe the actions that they would take
to operate the equipment and analyze information provided by cues to
successfully complete the JPM even though the JPM will not be performed
in the plant.
As shown in Difference #3 in Table 2, applicants at VEGP
Unit 3 will be required to demonstrate how to enter the RCA. The
facility licensee has established a mock-up of the RCA that contains
simulated radiation control areas and contaminated areas, and
``standards for entry into the mockup RCA are identical to an actual
RCA.'' Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that this method will require
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 to demonstrate knowledge of significant
radiation hazards located in radiation and/or contamination areas
inside the RCA and the ability to perform procedures to reduce
excessive levels of radiation and to guard against personnel exposure
even though the JPM will not be performed in the plant.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that the facility licensee's
proposed method of performing in-plant system JPMs will not cause the
LOK of the in-plant system JPMs administered to applicants at VEGP Unit
3 prior to the completion of plant construction to vary significantly
from those administered to applicants at VEGP Unit 3 after the
completion of construction.
Level of Difficulty: As stated in NUREG-1021, Appendix A, Section
C.3.c, ``Level of Knowledge Versus Level of Difficulty,'' the NRC
examiners evaluate a test item's LOD ``to ensure that the item can help
discriminate between safe and unsafe operators.'' ``Safe operators''
are the applicants who pass all portions of the operator licensing
examination with a score of 80% or higher. Thus, NUREG-1021 recommends
that the difficulty for individual test items range between 70% and 90%
(i.e., 70-90% of applicants could successfully perform the test item).
To achieve this, NUREG-1021 states that the NRC examiners must
integrate the following concepts:
[[Page 42753]]
The LOK of the test item, the operational validity of the test item
(i.e., the test item requires applicants to perform mental or
psychomotor activities that they will have to perform on the job), the
ability of distractors to distract the examinees, and the examinees'
past performance on items of similar difficulty. Appendix A
acknowledges that ``assigning a level of difficulty rating to an
individual test item is a somewhat subjective process.''
The NRC staff determined that the three differences listed in Table
2 do not cause the LOD that an applicant at VEGP Unit 3 must
demonstrate during in-plant system JPMs administered prior to the
completion of plant construction to vary significantly from the LOD
that an applicant must demonstrate during in-plant system JPMs
performed after the completion of construction at VEGP Unit 3 for the
following reasons.
As shown in Difference #1 in Table 2, the facility
licensee proposes that applicants at VEGP Unit 3 demonstrate knowledge
of equipment locations by using plant layout diagrams, equipment
diagrams, and/or maps to (1) to describe to the NRC examiner how they
would get to the location of the plant equipment that is the subject of
the JPM and to (2) correctly identify the building, elevation of the
building, and room number where the equipment will be located in VEGP
Unit 3. Additionally, the facility licensee proposes that ``plant
layout diagrams and/or pictures of components not directly related to
the task will also be made available to the applicant to maintain
discriminatory value . . .''
When an in-plant system JPM is performed in the plant, applicants
must physically walk the NRC examiner to the correct location in the
plant where the task will be performed. Applicants must choose the
correct location from among all of the other accessible plant
locations. Similarly, applicants at VEGP Unit 3 must choose the correct
plant layout diagram(s), equipment diagrams and/or map(s) from a set of
diagrams in order to show the NRC examiner how they would locate the
equipment in the plant.
If an applicant at an operating reactor has spent a sufficient
amount of time in the plant becoming familiar with its layout and the
location of plant equipment, then walking the NRC examiner to the
correct location during a JPM in the plant will be a relatively easy
task. Otherwise, this will be a relatively difficult task, and the
applicant may not be able to perform if he or she cannot find the
equipment that is the subject of the JPM. Similarly, if an applicant at
VEGP Unit 3 has spent a sufficient amount of time becoming familiar
with the plant layout diagrams and maps, then using these tools to show
the NRC examiner how he or she would access the equipment will be a
relatively easy task. Otherwise, this will be a relatively difficult
task, and the applicant may not be able to continue with the JPM
because he or she will not successfully demonstrate the ability to
access the equipment. In both cases, the applicants will either be able
to demonstrate knowledge to the NRC examiner, or they will not be able
to demonstrate knowledge. The NRC staff concludes that both methods
require applicants to select the correct location of plant equipment
from among other choices, and therefore the NRC examiners will still be
able to discriminate between operators that have this knowledge and
those that do not, and thus the LOD of the two methods is comparable.
Also, the NRC staff considered the implications for the testing
process of physically walking in the plant to a specific location as
compared to using plant layout diagrams and/or maps to show and
describe the route that would be taken to find the correct location
impacted LOD. Both methods require an applicant to recall and show
knowledge of plant locations to the NRC examiner. However, applicants
at plants that have been constructed will have spent time becoming
familiar with the routes through the plant that they must take to
access equipment during the conduct of OJT in the plant. During an in-
plant system JPM in the plant, they will likely be able to recall the
route(s) they have previously traveled by relying on unique visual
clues available in the plant such as signage and various access control
points that they must pass through to navigate their path to the
equipment that is the subject of the JPM. They may also possibly rely
on muscle memory to some extent to locate the equipment that is the
subject of the JPM. Additionally, NUREG-1021, Appendix E, ``Policies
and Guidelines for Taking NRC Examinations,'' contains directions that
NRC examiners provide to applicants and licensed operators prior to
every NRC examination. Appendix E, Section C.3, states,
The operating test is considered ``open reference.'' The
reference materials that are normally available to operators in the
facility and control room (including calibration curves, previous
log entries, piping and instrumentation diagrams, calculation
sheets, and procedures) are also available to you during the
operating test.
Plant layout diagrams and site maps are normally available to
operators. Thus, applicants at plants that have been constructed may
use plant layout diagrams and site maps to help them to locate the
equipment that is the subject of the JPM if they cannot recall the
location of the equipment from memory.
Unlike applicants at plants that have been constructed, the
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 that take operator licensing examinations
prior to the completion of plant construction will only use plant
layout diagrams and maps to describe the route they would take to
access the plant equipment. This method requires applicants to stand in
front of a document and trace or identify the route that would be
taken. This method is different from actually walking to a location in
the plant because (1) visual clues that would be available to
applicants in the plant will not be available, and (2) this method
requires applicants to use fewer motor skills, and thus it is not
likely that applicants will be able to use any muscle memory. This may
increase the LOD. However, Section 13.2A.1, ``Licensed Operator
Experience Requirements Prior To Commercial Operation,'' of the VEGP
Units 3 and 4 UFSAR states that all applicants at VEGP Unit 3 must
complete a site layout course. Also, the facility licensee stated in
Enclosure 1, ``Plant Walkthrough Exemptions,'' Section 5.5,
``Conclusion,'' of the May 27 letter that the proposed method of
performing in-plant system JPMs will ``not impact the ability to
maintain equitable and consistent testing under uniform conditions
because license applicants will be evaluated using the same methods
employed during their training.'' The NRC staff concludes that any
increase in LOD as a result of only using plant layout diagrams and
maps to demonstrate knowledge of locations will be offset by the fact
that the applicants will have been specifically trained on the
locations of plant equipment with these tools.
As shown in Difference #2 in Table 2, applicants will use
pictures of equipment or a mock-up of the equipment as a prop while
they describe and simulate how to operate the equipment to perform the
task. Instead of pointing to a piece of equipment in the plant and
verbally describing how to operate it, the applicant will either point
to a diagram or picture of the equipment as a prop while describing how
to operate it or use a piece of mock-up equipment to actually perform
the task required by the JPM. The facility licensee proposes that
diagrams and pictures of components not directly related to the task
will also be made available to the applicant so that the applicant must
make a choice. The NRC staff determined that the facility
[[Page 42754]]
licensee's proposed method of performing in-plant system JPMs will
require an applicant to select the correct piece of equipment from
among other options, which is similar to having to make that selection
in the plant. Therefore, the NRC examiners will still be able to
discriminate between operators that have this knowledge and those that
do not, and thus the LOD of the two methods is comparable.
The NRC staff also considered the difference in the quality of the
props used in the facility licensee's proposed method of performing in-
plant system JPMs compared to the quality of the plant equipment as a
prop. Enclosure 2, ``Response to NRC Request for Additional Information
No.9,'' contains Table E2-1, which lists tasks from the VEGP Units 3
and 4 site-specific task list that could be a JPM. The NRC staff
reviewed Table E2-1 and determined that the breaker lab, the
maintenance flow loop trainer, the RCA mock-up, and the Remote Shutdown
Workstation available in the VEGP training facilities could be used as
props during some JPMs. These tools are realistic representations of
certain pieces of plant equipment and are therefore equivalent to the
actual plant equipment.
However, these tools will not be able to be used for every in-plant
system JPM that could be developed because the tasks listed in Table
E2-1 include tasks unrelated to breaker operation, remote shutdown, or
plant components modeled in the flow loop trainer (e.g., Table E2-1
includes a task to ``startup the in core instrument system''). In these
instances, the facility licensee proposes to use equipment diagrams or
pictures of plant equipment as props. In these cases, the pictures may
not be the same size as the actual plant equipment, or, in the case of
equipment diagrams, they might not provide the same visual detail to an
applicant that would be provided by the actual plant equipment. This
could make these props more difficult to use compared to the actual
plant equipment. However, because the facility licensee proposes to use
the same props during the administration of in-plant system JPMs that
have been used in the training program, the NRC staff concludes that
any increase in LOD as a result of using pictures or equipment diagrams
to demonstrate knowledge will be offset by the fact that the applicants
have used these props during their training.
As shown in Difference #3 in Table 2, applicants will have
to enter a mock-up of the RCA for at least one in-plant JPM. As stated
in the facility licensee's submittal, the ``standards for entry into
the mockup RCA are identical to an actual RCA.'' Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes that this difference has no impact on the LOD of the
in-plant system JPMs because there is no difference between
demonstrating the ability to enter the actual RCA and demonstrating the
ability to enter a mock-up of the RCA.
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that the facility licensee's
proposed method of performing in-plant system JPMs will not cause the
LOD of the in-plant system JPMs administered to applicants at VEGP Unit
3 prior to the completion of plant construction to vary significantly
from those administered to applicants at VEGP Unit 3 after the
completion of construction.
Use of Exam Banks: NUREG-1021, Form ES-301-2, ``Control Room/In-
Plant Systems Outline,'' contains criteria for the use of JPMs in the
facility licensee's exam bank that may be used on operator licensing
examinations. In Enclosure 1, ``Plant Walkthrough Exemptions,'' Section
5.3, ``Discrimination Validity,'' the facility licensee stated, ``[a]ny
questions, discussions, or other cold licensing methods used for task
evaluation will have no impact on how the examination bank is used.''
The NRC staff also concluded that the facility licensee's proposed
method of performing in-plant system JPMs does not impact the use of
exam banks because the facility licensee's proposed method of
administering JPMs has nothing to do with the selection of JPMs from
its exam bank.
In summary, the NRC staff concludes that the facility licensee's
proposed method of performing in-plant system JPMs does not
significantly impact the internal attributes of the in-plant system
JPMs that will be administered to applicants at VEGP Unit 3 prior to
the completion of plant construction as compared to the in-plant system
JPMs administered to applicants at plants that have been constructed.
Evaluation of External Attributes
The external attributes of an examination include the number and
types of items (e.g., in-plant system JPMs), the length of the
examination, security procedures, and proctoring instructions. The
facility licensee is not proposing to alter the number or types of
items, the length of the examination, security procedures, or
proctoring instructions for any part of the operator licensing
examination. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the external
attributes of the operator licensing examinations that will be
administered to applicants at VEGP Unit 3 prior to the completion of
plant construction will be the same external attributes of the operator
licensing examinations administered to applicants at plants that have
been constructed.
Summary of Evaluation of Internal and External Attributes
In summary, the NRC staff concludes that the facility licensee's
proposed method of performing in-plant system JPMs does not cause the
internal and external attributes of the in-plant system JPMs
administered to applicants at VEGP Unit 3 prior to the completion of
plant construction to vary significantly from those administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 after the completion of construction. Because
in-plant system JPMs are a portion of the operator licensing
examination, the NRC staff also concludes that the facility licensee's
proposed method does not cause the internal or external attributes of
the operator licensing examinations that will be administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 prior to the completion of plant construction
to vary significantly from those administered to applicants at VEGP
Unit 3 after the completion of construction.
Impact of Plant Construction on Developing Content-Valid Exams
In Enclosure 2, ``Response to NRC Request for Additional
Information No. 9'' of the May 27 letter, the facility licensee stated
that some in-plant tasks on the site-specific task list that have an
importance rating of 2.5 or higher cannot be used to develop a JPM at
this time. Because not all plant systems have been constructed or
turned over to the facility licensee from the vendor, some procedures
are not available at this time. A JPM cannot be performed without a
procedure. If the pool of in-plant tasks that could be used to develop
a JPM is limited, then it is possible that important K/As could be
omitted from the operating test, which would reduce the content
validity of the exam.
In Enclosure 2 of the May 27 letter, the facility licensee provided
Table E2-1. Of the tasks that the facility licensee included in Table
E2-1, the NRC staff found that 101 of 109 possible tasks have
procedures available at this time and therefore can be used to develop
an in-plant system JPM; only eight tasks do not have procedures
available at this time and thus cannot be used to develop an in-plant
system JPM. Of these eight tasks, the NRC staff compared the safety
functions listed for each of the eight tasks with the safety functions
listed in Table 1, ``Plant Systems by Safety Function,'' in NUREG-2103.
The NRC staff found that of the eight tasks, two are associated with
plant systems
[[Page 42755]]
related to Safety Function #6, Electrical; five are associated with
plant service systems related to Safety Function #8, Plant Service
Systems; and one is associated with a plant system related to Safety
Function #4, Heat Removal from the Reactor Core.
The NRC staff reviewed the 101 tasks that do have procedures
available at this time and found that multiple tasks associated with
the plant systems related to these safety functions as well as the
other safety functions listed in Table 1 in NUREG-2103 can be used at
this time to develop an in-plant system JPM. Thus, although these eight
tasks may be excluded from the sample at this time, there is still a
diverse set of other tasks that can be used to test an applicant's
knowledge and abilities related to the operation of plant systems
associated with each of the nine safety functions. Additionally,
because the plant systems associated with Safety Functions #4, 6, and 8
are primarily operated from the main control room, the criteria in
NUREG-1021, ES-301, Section D.4.a, which states that ``each of the
control room systems and evolutions (and separately each of the in-
plant systems and evolutions) selected . . . should evaluate a
different safety function . . .,'' will still be followed, thus
ensuring that the content of each operating test sufficiently samples
the safety functions and K/As. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the
elimination of these eight tasks from the possible pool of in-plant
system JPMs at this time does not result in any omission of K/As from
the operator licensing examinations administered to applicants at VEGP
Unit 3 at this time. Therefore, the examinations administered to
applicants at VEGP Unit 3 at this time will be content-valid
examinations.
Impact of Alternative Method on Knowledge Retention and Learning New
Knowledge
The NRC staff has assurance that all applicants who become licensed
at VEGP Unit 3 will be trained and tested on new procedures and tasks
as they become available. This is because all licensed operators are
subject to the requalification requirements of 10 CFR 55.59. These
requirements include additional operating tests as follows:
(a) Requalification requirements. Each licensee shall--
(1) Successfully complete a requalification program developed by
the facility licensee that has been approved by the Commission. This
program shall be conducted for a continuous period not to exceed 24
months in duration.
(2) Pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and
an annual operating test.
(i) The written examination will sample the items specified in
Sec. Sec. 55.41 and 55.43 of this part, to the extent applicable to
the facility, the licensee, and any limitation of the license under
Sec. 55.53(c) of this part.
(ii) The operating test will require the operator or senior
operator to demonstrate an understanding of and the ability to
perform the actions necessary to accomplish a comprehensive sample
of items specified in Sec. 55.45(a) (2) through (13) inclusive to
the extent applicable to the facility.
In other words, the applicants who receive a license will be required
to take additional operating tests to maintain the license as part of
the licensed operator requalification program. Therefore, the
requalification program gives the NRC staff additional confidence that,
as the plant is completed, operators will be continually trained and
tested on operationally-important in-plant systems and tasks directed
by procedures that have not been developed yet.
NUREG-1021 provides guidance for applicants transitioning from the
initial license program to the requalification program: ES-605, Section
C.1.b, states, ``Newly licensed operators must enter the
requalification training and examination program promptly upon
receiving their licenses.'' Also, ES-204 states that the region may
administer a license examination to an applicant who has not satisfied
the applicable training or experience requirements at the time of the
examination, but is expected to complete them shortly thereafter. These
requirements in NUREG-1021 help to ensure that the period of time
between completing all of the requirements to be licensed, which
includes completing the initial license training program and passing
the operator licensing examination, and entering a requalification
program that meets the requirements of 10 CFR 55.59 is minimized so
that applicants (1) receive refresher training on topics learned in the
initial training program, which ensures knowledge retention of
operationally-important topics, and (2) receive training on new
operationally-important topics as they become available (e.g., new
procedures and tasks).
In Enclosure 1, ``Plant Walkthrough Exemptions,'' Section 6.3,
``Otherwise in the Public Interest,'' of the May 27 letter, the
facility licensee stated that applicants ``enrolled in an initial
license training (ILT) program are training as a full-time job and
cannot participate in completing the required 6 months of meaningful
work experience.'' As described in NEI 06-13A, Appendix A, applicants
in the cold licensing process must complete at least 6 months of
``practical and meaningful work experience'' as part of the experience
requirements for an operator's license. Applicants that do not complete
any of a portion of the 6 months of practical and meaningful work
assignments prior to enrolling in the ILT program will have to do so
before the NRC issues a license. Therefore, some applicants at VEGP
Unit 3 may not complete the requirements to be licensed ``shortly''
after taking the operator licensing examination. Because these
applicants would not yet be licensed, under NRC regulations they would
not be required to be enrolled in a training program that meets the
requirements of 10 CFR 55.59, ``Requalification.''
Although these applicants will be participating in practical and
meaningful work assignments to gain experience with the AP1000 design,
these assignments do not necessarily ensure that these applicants will
receive refresher training on topics learned in the ILT program or
receive training on new topics as they become available. In accordance
with 10 CFR 55.51,
If the Commission determines that an applicant for an operator
license or a senior operator license meets the requirements of the
Act and its regulations, it will issue a license in the form and
containing any conditions and limitations it considers appropriate
and necessary.
Therefore, the Commission may find it necessary to issue licenses with
any conditions or limitations that may be necessary to ensure that the
applicants have retained knowledge and learned new operationally-
important topics during the time between completion of the operator
licensing examination and issuance of the license.
In summary, as allowed by NUREG-1021, ES-201, Section B,
``Background,'' with its exemption request, the facility licensee
proposed alternatives to the examination criteria contained in NUREG-
1021 with respect to the in-plant/plant walk-through portions of the
operating test. The NRC staff reviewed the proposed method of
administering in-plant system JPMs described in Enclosure 1 of the May
27 letter. For the reasons described above, the NRC staff concluded
that the proposed alternatives provide an acceptable method of
complying with the Commission's regulations, as exempted.
If, in the future, the facility licensee desires to implement an
approach that differs from the alternative described in the May 27
letter, then it should seek approval from the NRC.
[[Page 42756]]
Limitations and Expiration
The facility licensee requested the exemption from the regulation
that requires the operating test to be administered in a plant walk-
through because of the incomplete construction of the plant. As
construction of different sections of the facility becomes
substantially complete and in-plant systems, components, and structures
(SSCs) near completion, usage of this exemption will become unnecessary
for those areas and SSCs. Accordingly, on a case-by-case basis, for
those tasks that are selected to be part of an operating task in
accordance with NUREG-1021, ES-301, Section D.4.a and Section D.4.b,
where it is possible to both perform on-the-job training in the plant
and administer part of an operating test in a plant walk-through, as
determined by the NRC examiners, this exemption may not be used.
Furthermore, this exemption will finally expire and may no longer be
used upon the Commission's finding for VEGP Unit 3 in accordance with
10 CFR 52.103(g) (``The licensee shall not operate the facility until
the Commission makes a finding that the acceptance criteria in the
combined license are met, except for those acceptance criteria that the
Commission found were met under Sec. 52.97(a)(2).'').
Environmental Consideration
This exemption allows one, two, or three of the required in-plant
system JPMs to be performed using discussion and performance methods in
combination with plant layout diagrams, maps, equipment diagrams,
pictures, and mock-ups in lieu of plant equipment. The NRC staff
evaluated whether there would be significant environmental impacts
associated with the issuance of the requested exemptions. The NRC staff
determined the proposed action fits a category of actions that do not
require an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement.
For the following reasons, this exemption meets the eligibility
criteria of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25) for a categorical exclusion. There is
no significant hazards consideration related to this exemption. The NRC
staff has also determined that the exemption involves no significant
increase in the amounts, and no significant change in the types, of any
effluents that may be released offsite; that there is no significant
increase in individual or cumulative public or occupational radiation
exposure; that there is no significant construction impact; and that
there is no significant increase in the potential for or consequences
from radiological accidents. Finally, the requirements to which the
exemption applies involve qualification requirements. Accordingly, the
exemption meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set
forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(25). Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no
environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared in connection with the issuance of the exemption.
IV. Conclusion
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR
55.11, issuing this exemption from the requirement in 55.45(b) to
administer a portion of the operating test in a plant walk-through is
authorized by law and will not endanger life or property and is
otherwise in the public interest. The Commission also has approved the
facility licensee's proposed alternative to the examination criteria in
NUREG-1021, ES-301, Section D.4.a and Section D.4.b and therefore will
allow one, two, or three of the required in-plant system JPMs to be
performed using discussion and performance methods in combination with
plant layout diagrams, maps, equipment diagrams, pictures, and mock-ups
in lieu of plant equipment until the Commission makes a finding for
VEGP Unit 3 that acceptance criteria in the combined license are met in
accordance with 10 CFR 52.103(g).
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 24th day of June, 2016.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Samuel S. Lee,
Acting Deputy Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of
New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2016-15547 Filed 6-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
