Southern Nuclear Operating Company Inc; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Units 3 and 4, 26163-26168 [2019-11688]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Notices
Dated: May 31, 2019.
Suzanne H. Plimpton,
Reports Clearance Officer, National Science
Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2019–11720 Filed 6–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 52–025 and 52–026; NRC–
2008–0252]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company
Inc; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant
Units 3 and 4
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Exemption; issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing an
exemption from the requirements of the
Commission’s regulations that require a
written examination and operating test
to be requested and administered to 11
operator license applicants at Vogtle
Electric Generating Plant (VEGP) Unit 3
in response to a December 20, 2018,
request from Southern Nuclear
Operating Company (SNC). The NRC is
giving these 11 applicants credit for the
written examination and operating test
they took and passed after they applied
for a license to operate Virgil C. Summer
Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Unit 2.
DATES: This exemption was issued on
June 5, 2019.
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 Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2008–0252. Address
questions about NRC docket IDs in
Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301–287–9127; email:
Jennifer.Borges@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 ‘‘Begin Webbased 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,
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
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. The
request for the exemption was
submitted by letter dated December 20,
2018 and is available in ADAMS under
Package Accession No. ML19030A226.
The request was supplemented by letter
dated March 4, 2019, and April 16, 2019
(ADAMS Accession Nos. ML19063B575
and ML19121A504, respectively).
• 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:
Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–3025; email: Chandu.Patel@
nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
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 (collectively SNC) are the
holders of facility Combined License
(COL) Nos. NFP–91 and NPF–92, which
authorize the construction and
operation of VEGP Units 3 and 4. The
COLs, issued under part 52 of title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), provide, among other things, that
the facilities are subject to all rules,
regulations, and orders of the NRC or
the Commission now or hereafter in
effect. The facilities consist of two
Westinghouse Electric Company
(Westinghouse) AP1000 pressurizedwater reactors (PWRs) located in Burke
County, Georgia.
Appendix D of 10 CFR part 52,
‘‘Design Certification Rule for the
AP1000 Design,’’ constitutes the
standard design certification for the
Westinghouse AP1000 design, in
accordance with 10 CFR part 52, subpart
B. ‘‘Standard design’’ is defined in 10
CFR 52.1 as, ‘‘a design which is
sufficiently detailed and complete to
support certification or approval in
accordance with subpart B or E of this
part, and which is usable for a multiple
number of units or at a multiple number
of sites without reopening or repeating
the review.’’
Like VEGP Units 3 and 4, VCSNS
Units 2 and 3 were also Westinghouse
AP1000 PWRs under construction. The
COLs for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 were
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26163
issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company (SCE&G) and South Carolina
Public Service Authority (Santee
Cooper). After construction of VCSNS
Units 2 and 3 ceased in July 2017, SNC
hired 11 former VCSNS Unit 2 operator
license applicants who had previously
passed both an NRC written
examination and an operating test for
VCSNS Unit 2. These 11 applicants each
received a notification letter (i.e., a
‘‘pass letter’’) from the NRC following
their satisfactory completion of the
written examination and operating test
for VCSNS Unit 2. NUREG–1021,
‘‘Operator Licensing Examination
Standards for Power Reactors,’’ Revision
11, Section ES–501, ‘‘Initial PostExamination Activities,’’ explains the
purpose of the notification letter as
follows:
A Notification Letter is issued if an
applicant has passed the requisite written
examination and operating test in accordance
with 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and
55.45, and the applicant’s general medical
condition meets the minimum standards
under 10 CFR 55.33(a)(1) or may be
accommodated with appropriate conditions
under 10 CFR 55.33(b), but the applicant has
not to-date completed all the elements of 10
CFR 55.31. This letter notifies the applicant
that his or her license will be issued when
the incomplete (deferred) items are resolved.
The regional office will issue a license when
the applicant and/or facility licensee, as
appropriate, completes the deferred items.
Construction of VCSNS Units 2 and 3
ceased before the 11 former VCSNS Unit
2 operator license applicants completed
all of the requirements in 10 CFR 55.31,
and therefore they did not receive
licenses to operate VCSNS Unit 2.
II. Request/Action
Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, ‘‘Specific
exemptions,’’ by letter dated December
20, 2018, as supplemented by letters
dated March 4, 2019, and April 16,
2019, SNC requested an exemption from
the requirements in 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3)
and 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) on the behalf of
the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2 operator
license applicants that SNC hired
following cessation of construction of
VCSNS Units 2 and 3. SNC also
requested on the behalf of these 11
applicants that their pass letters for
VCSNS Unit 2 be transferred to VEGP
Unit 3. Enclosure 1 of the December 20,
2018, letter contains SNC’s justification
for the requested exemptions. Enclosure
2 of the April 16, 2019, letter identifies
the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2 reactor
operator license applicants by name and
docket number.
10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) requires each
applicant for an operator’s license to
submit a written request that the written
examination and operating test be
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
26164
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Notices
administered to the applicant. This
written request must come from an
authorized representative of the facility
licensee by which the applicant will be
employed. Section 55.33(a)(2) states in
part that the Commission will approve
an initial application for a license if it
finds that the applicant has passed the
requisite written examination and
operating test in accordance with 10
CFR 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and 55.45.
The written exams and operating tests
determine whether an 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. Written exams administered to
operator candidates must contain a
representative sample of the topics
listed in 10 CFR 55.41(b)(1)–(14), and
additionally, written exams
administered to senior operators must
contain a representative sample of the
topics listed in 10 CFR 55.43(b)(1)–(7).
Operating tests must contain a
representative sample of the topics
listed in 10 CFR 55.45(a)(1)–(13).
Additionally, 10 CFR 55.40(a)
requires the Commission to use the
criteria in NUREG–1021 in effect 6 six
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 and to evaluate the written
examinations and operating tests
prepared by power reactor facility
licensees. Preparing the written
examinations and operating tests using
the appropriate knowledge and abilities
catalog, in conjunction with NUREG–
1021, ensures that the written exams
and operating tests include a
representative sample of the items
specified in 10 CFR 55.41, 55.43, and
55.45.
NUREG–2103, ‘‘Knowledge and
Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power
Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000
Pressurized-Water Reactors,’’ was
developed specifically for Westinghouse
AP1000 PWRs. NUREG–1021, Section
ES–102, ‘‘Purpose and Format of
Operator Licensing Examination
Standards,’’ states that NUREG–2103
‘‘provides the basis for developing
content-valid licensing examinations for
operators at Westinghouse AP–1000®
PWRs.’’ NUREG–1021, Appendix A,
‘‘Overview of Generic Examination
Concepts,’’ explains the concept of
content-validity and states, ‘‘In the case
of the NRC examinations, the intent is
to measure the examinee’s knowledge
and ability (K/A) such that those who
pass will be able to perform the duties
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
of a reactor operator (RO) or senior
reactor operator (SRO) to ensure the safe
operation of the plant. . . . In order to
develop valid examinations, the K/As
selected for testing must be linked to
and based upon a description of the
most important job duties.’’ To that end,
the K/A statements in each of the NRC’s
K/A catalogs have been rated for their
importance to ensure that the plant is
operated in a manner consistent with
the health and safety of plant personnel
and the public. The rating scale is from
1 to 5, where a 5 is considered essential
to safe operation. Only K/As with an
importance rating of 2.5 or higher are
considered appropriate content for
written examinations and operating
tests (unless there is a site-specific
priority that justifies use of the K/A
with an importance rating below 2.5).
In accordance with the guidance in
NUREG–1021, Section ES–401N,
‘‘Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written
Examinations,’’ a sample plan needs to
be prepared for each written
examination. Section ES–401N states,
‘‘Systematically and randomly select
specific K/A statements (e.g., K1.03 or
A2.11) from NUREG–2103 (for AP–
1000®) . . . to complete each of the
three tiers (i.e., Tier 1, ‘‘Emergency and
Abnormal Plant Evolutions’’; Tier 2,
‘‘Plant Systems’’; and Tier 3, ‘‘Generic
Knowledge and Abilities’’) of the
applicable examination outline.’’ For
the AP1000, NUREG–1021, Form ES–
401N–2, ‘‘AP–1000® Examination
Outline,’’ is the applicable examination
outline. Once the written examination
outline is complete, written
examination questions can be developed
from the K/A statements selected for the
examination as documented on the
examination outline.
The K/A catalog is also used to select
topics for the operating test, which
consists of an individual walkthrough
portion and a simulator test. The
individual walkthrough examinations
are commonly referred to as ‘‘job
performance measures’’ (JPMs). The
individual walkthrough portion of the
operating test consists of two parts,
‘‘Administrative Topics’’ and ‘‘Control
Room/In-Plant Systems,’’ each of which
focuses on specific K/As. In accordance
with the guidance in NUREG–1021, ES–
301, ‘‘Preparing Initial Operating Tests,’’
K/As for the administrative topics shall
be selected from Section 2 of the
applicable NRC K/A catalog. The
administrative topics are conduct of
operations, equipment control, radiation
control, and the site’s emergency plan
and implementing procedures. The
administrative topics identified in
Section 2, ‘‘Generic Knowledges and
Abilities,’’ of NUREG–2103 are also
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sampled on the written examination.
Appendix B, ‘‘Written Exam
Guidelines,’’ and Appendix C, ‘‘Job
Performance Measure Guidelines,’’ of
NUREG–1021 contain guidance for
preparing and evaluating written
examination questions and job
performance measures, respectively.
III. Discussion
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 the regulations of 10
CFR part 55 as it determines are
authorized by law, will not endanger
life or property, and 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 the conditions listed therein
are met (i.e., will not endanger life or
property and are 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 written
examinations and operating tests; the
‘‘endanger’’ and ‘‘public interest’’
factors are addressed in the next
sections in this notice.
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.
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
operator licensing examinations
administered as part of the licensing
process. The 11 former VCSNS Unit 2
operator license applicants identified in
Enclosure 2 of the letter dated April 16,
2019, took and passed an NRC written
examination and operating test for
VCSNS Unit 2, which was prepared and
evaluated using the criteria in NUREG–
1021. The initial NRC written exams
and operating tests administered to
applicants for VEGP Unit 3 were also
prepared and evaluated using the
criteria in NUREG–1021. Therefore,
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Notices
these 11 applicants took and passed an
NRC written examination and operating
test that was of the same structure,
scope, and format as those administered
to the operator license applicants at
VEGP Unit 3. Also, the same K/A
catalog was used to develop the written
exams and operating tests administered
to operator license applicants at both
VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3, and
therefore written exams and operating
tests administered at both sites included
a representative sample of content-valid
topics for the AP1000 design; the
sample of K/As used to develop written
exams and operating tests administered
for VCSNS Unit 2 could also have been
used to develop exams administered for
VEGP Unit 3, and vice versa.
The staff considered whether any
differences in the design and operation
of the plant systems at VCSNS Unit 2
and VEGP Unit 3 would result in
significant differences between the
simulators used to administer the
operating tests at VCSNS Unit 2 and
VEGP Unit 3 at the time that the 11
applicants received pass letters. Because
the AP1000 is designed to be a standard
plant, VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3
were similar in their design and
operation. As discussed in Enclosure 1,
Section 4.0, of the letter dated December
20, 2018, the staff approved the
simulators at VEGP Unit 3 and VCSNS
Unit 2 as Commission-approved
simulation facilities as discussed in two
safety evaluations (ADAMS Accession
Nos. ML16070A301 and ML16203A116,
respectively). In those safety
evaluations, the staff concluded that the
VCSNS Unit 2 simulation facility and
the VEGP Unit 3 simulation facility each
demonstrated sufficient scope and
fidelity with the AP1000 reference plant
design control document (DCD) to
support approval of the simulation
facilities at both sites for the equitable
and consistent administration of
operator licensing examinations. The
plant combined licenses for VCSNS
Unit 2 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14100A092) and VEGP Unit 3
(ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A106)
state that the COL applications for both
sites incorporate by reference appendix
D to 10 CFR part 52, which approves
Revision 19 of the AP1000 DCD
(ADAMS Package Accession No.
ML11171A500) (i.e., the reference plant
DCD). The safety evaluations also state
that the staff determined that the
simulation facilities for both VEGP Unit
3 and VCSNS Unit 2 model the AP1000
plant systems and also contains the
alarms, indications, and controls needed
to operate the AP1000 plant systems.
Thus, the staff concludes that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
simulation facilities used to administer
the operating tests to the 11 former
VCSNS Unit 2 applicants and the VEGP
Unit 3 applicants each sufficiently
modeled the AP1000 plant systems,
alarms, indications, and controls.
In Enclosure 1, Section 2.0, ‘‘Detailed
Description,’’ of the letter dated
December 20, 2018, SNC explained that
the operator training programs for
VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3 were
similar and stated, ‘‘The AP1000 is
designed to be a standard plant. VCSNS
Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3 are of similar
age and power level, and share the same
vendor and similar design. Training
material (e.g., lesson plans, simulator
scenarios, operating procedures) for
operators at VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP
Unit 3 was created jointly by SNC and
SCE&G using common procedures and
references provided to the utilities by
Westinghouse.’’ SNC also stated in
Enclosure 1, Section 4.0, ‘‘Technical
Justification of Acceptability,’’ of the
letter dated December 20, 2018,
‘‘Examinations and tests were
developed to assess the knowledge,
skills, and abilities needed by operators
to perform assigned tasks common to
both VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3.’’
Also, in Enclosure 1, Section 4.0 of the
letter dated December 20, 2018 and in
the letter dated March 4, 2019, SNC
explained that VEGP Unit 3 instructors
who are certified as senior operators and
former VCSNS Unit 2 senior operator
candidates conducted a line-by-line
comparison of the operator and senior
operator task lists for both sites. SNC
found that all the VEGP Unit 3 tasks
were included on the VCSNS Unit 2
task list. Thus, the 11 former VCSNS
Unit 2 operator license applicants were
trained to perform the same tasks as the
operator license applicants at VEGP
Unit 3 during the training they received
prior to taking the NRC written
examination and operating test.
However, SNC also explained that some
procedures cited in the task statements
on the task lists for VCSNS Unit 2 were
different than the procedures cited in
the task lists for VEGP Unit 3. Testable
differences (i.e., those tasks with K/As
rated 2.5 or more in the K/A catalog)
were limited to site-specific emergency
planning and ‘‘conduct of operations’’
procedures, which include topics
related to plant control, configuration
management, and administration of
duties onsite. Specifically, at a public
meeting on December 6, 2018 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML18340A087), SNC
listed each of the VEGP Unit 3
procedures that were included in the
training provided to the 11 applicants.
Because the site-specific emergency
planning and conduct of operations
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26165
procedures were different at each site,
the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2 operator
license applicants may have been
trained to perform tasks necessary to
implement the emergency plan and
tasks discussed in the conduct of
operations procedures differently than
the VEGP Unit 3 applicants. Also,
because there are K/As related to
emergency plan implementing
procedures (EPIPs) and conduct of
operations topics in Section 2 of
NUREG–2103, the written examination
questions and administrative JPMs
developed from those K/As may have
tested knowledge, skills, and abilities
necessary to perform tasks at VCSNS
Unit 2 not relevant to VEGP Unit 3.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the
portions of the written exams and
operating tests administered at VCSNS
Unit 2 that did not include K/As from
Section 2 of NUREG–2103 related to the
site-specific emergency plan
implementing procedures and conduct
of operations topics are also relevant to
the design and operation of VEGP Unit
3. Thus, for those portions of the exams
unrelated to site-specific emergency
plan implementing procedures and
conduct of operations topics, the 11
individuals have taken and passed a
written examination and operating test
that demonstrates that they have learned
to operate VEGP Unit 3, similar to the
VEGP Unit 3 operator license applicants
who have passed a written examination
and operating test.
As discussed in the next section in
this notice, SNC provided training to the
11 individuals on the VEGP Unit 3
emergency planning and conduct of
operations procedures and administered
exams that the staff has determined are
sufficient to evaluate the 11 applicants’
competency on these topics. Thus, the
staff concludes that these 11 applicants
demonstrated that they have learned to
implement the VEGP Unit 3 emergency
plan procedures and the conduct of
operations in a manner similar to how
the VEGP Unit 3 operator license
applicants did on the NRC written
examination and operating test.
For the reasons explained in this
notice, the staff concludes that, like the
VEGP Unit 3 applicants who have
passed an NRC written examination and
operating test, the 11 former VCSNS
Unit 2 operator license applicants
demonstrated that they have learned to
perform the duties of an operator or
senior operator at VEGP Unit 3 by
passing an NRC written examination
and operating test at VCSNS Unit 2 and
the additional test(s) administered by
SNC specifically to address site-specific
differences in the emergency plan and
conduct of operations procedures.
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
26166
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Notices
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Considering the extent to which the
knowledge and abilities associated with
the operation of VEGP Unit 3 of the 11
former VCSNS Unit 2 applicants have
been assessed consistent with the
manner in which VEGP Unit 3
applicants were assessed, the staff
concludes that uniformity and
consistency under the exemption will
be maintained, and granting of the
exemption will not alter the basis for the
staff’s licensing decisions. Accordingly,
the 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
As stated, in part, in 10 CFR
55.33(a)(2), the Commission will
approve an initial application for a
license if it finds that the applicant has
passed the requisite written
examination and operating test in
accordance with 10 CFR 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 examination
adequately determines who is
competent, those exams are protective
of and do not endanger life or property.
As discussed in the section in this
notice, the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2
operator license applicants took and
passed an NRC written examination and
operating test at VCSNS Unit 2 that
tested K/As that are also relevant to the
design and operation of VEGP Unit 3,
with two exceptions: Written
examination questions and
administrative JPMs developed from K/
As in Section 2 of NUREG–2103 that are
related to site-specific emergency plan
implementing procedures and conduct
of operations procedures may have
tested information that is not relevant to
VEGP Unit 3 due to differences in those
procedures at the two sites. The
portions of the VCSNS Unit 2 exams
that tested K/As related to the EPIPs and
conduct of operations procedures are
not necessarily relevant to VEGP Unit 3
because the VCSNS Unit 2 procedures
were different than those at VEGP Unit
3. Thus, the staff cannot rely on the
previous VCSNS Unit 2 written
examination and operating test results
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
to conclude that the 11 applicants have
demonstrated competency in the VEGP
Unit 3 EPIPs and conduct of operations.
However, SNC provided training to
the 11 applicants on the VEGP Unit 3
EPIPs and conduct of operations
procedures. In Enclosure 1, Section 4.0,
of the December 20, 2018, letter, SNC
stated that it trained the 11 applicants
on the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs using the
same training material that was
provided to the VEGP Unit 3 operator
license applicants. These 11 applicants
also completed self-study of the VEGP
Unit 3 conduct of operations
procedures; VEGP Unit 3 training
instructors were available to assist and
answer questions as necessary.
Furthermore, in Enclosure 1, Section
4.0, of the December 20, 2018, letter,
SNC stated that the 11 former VCSNS
Unit 2 operator license applicants and
all VEGP Unit 3 applicants who have
passed NRC written exams and
operating tests have been enrolled in a
continuing training program at VEGP
Unit 3. The continuing training program
uses a systematic approach to training to
ensure the applicants maintain
proficiency, and it is accredited by the
National Academy for Nuclear
Training.1 As discussed in Enclosure 1,
Section 2.0, and Section 4.0, of the
December 20, 2018, letter, the
continuing training program curriculum
includes training on design and
procedure changes as well as on the
site-specific aspects of VEGP Unit 3
plant systems.
Additionally, in Enclosure 1, Section
4.0, of the December 20, 2018, letter,
SNC stated that it also administered
examinations on the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs
and the conduct of operations
procedures to the 11 applicants, and
each of the 11 applicants passed these
examinations. In the March 4, 2019,
letter, SNC stated that the minimum
passing score for these examinations
was 80 percent, which is the minimum
passing score, or cut score, used on NRC
examinations. In the March 4, 2019,
letter, SNC also listed the methods it
took to establish examination security
such that the applicants did not have
knowledge of the examination content
prior to taking SNC’s examinations.
These measures included controlling
access to the exam content, counting
copies of the examinations, informing
1 As discussed in NUREG–1021, ES–202, a facility
licensee’s training program is considered to be
approved by the NRC when it is accredited by the
National Nuclear Accrediting Board (NNAB). The
National Academy for Nuclear Training operates
under the auspices of the Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations (INPO). It integrates the training efforts
of all U.S. nuclear utilities, the activities of the
NNAB, and the training-related activities of INPO.
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
applicants and instructors not to discuss
examination content, and requiring the
applicants to sign an examination
integrity statement. The staff concludes
these methods are consistent with the
physical security guidelines for
examination integrity in NUREG–1021,
ES–201, Attachment 1, ‘‘Exam Security
and Integrity Considerations,’’ which
were established to prevent the
applicants from having prior knowledge
of the content on NRC examinations.
In Enclosure 1 of the April 16, 2019,
letter, SNC explained how the
examinations it administered to these 11
applicants were comparable to the JPMs
and written examination questions they
would have otherwise taken on an NRC
examination at VEGP Unit 3.
The exams that SNC administered to
the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2 operator
license applicants on the VEGP Unit 3
EPIPs and the conduct of operations
procedures, immediately following the
gap training, included both JPMs and
written test questions. The examinations
consisted of a 25-question written exam
and a 5-part JPM exam. The written
exam questions met the standards in
NUREG–1021, Appendix B, and the JPM
questions met the standards in NUREG–
1021, Appendix C. All written test
questions and JPMs were based on and
linked to K/A items selected from
NUREG–2103. The importance rating of
each K/A item was equal to or greater
than 2.5. The examinations were based
on closing the gaps which were
identified during the Systematic
Approach to Training based gap
analysis. The K/As selected for the
examinations that SNC administered
sampled from all the K/As that SNC
identified as testable differences. K/As
from the following sections of NUREG–
2103 were sampled: 2.1 Conduct of
operations, 2.2 Equipment Control, 2.3
Radiation Control, and 2.4 Emergency
Procedures and Emergency Plan.
Subsequently, five additional JPMs were
administered to the 11 applicants listed
in the exemption request. The
supplementary JPMs tested the
candidates’ knowledge of the conduct of
operations procedures. These JPM
questions were linked to K/As, from
Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of NUREG–
2103, having an importance rating of 2.5
or higher. The questions met the
standards in NUREG–1021, Appendix C
and were written and administered by
trained and experienced instructors.
The scores of the supplementary JPMs
were combined with the scores of the
initial JPMs to provide an overall grade
for the JPM exam.
Because conduct of operations topics
are tested on the NRC initial
examination using written examination
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Notices
questions and JPMs sampled from K/As
in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of the K/A
catalog, and because the written
examination questions and JPMs that
SNC developed used the same standards
in NUREG–2103, Appendices B and C
that are used for NRC initial
examinations, the staff concludes that
SNC tested the 11 applicants on their
knowledge of the VEGP Unit 3 conduct
of operations procedures using the same
evaluation methods, standards, and
passing criteria that is used for the NRC
initial examinations. Thus, the written
examination questions and JPMs the
applicants took and passed on the VEGP
Unit 3 conduct of operations procedures
were comparable to those they would
otherwise take on an NRC examination
administered at VEGP Unit 3. Therefore,
the staff concludes that SNC sufficiently
evaluated the 11 applicants’ knowledge
of and competency applying the VEGP
Unit 3 conduct of operations
procedures.
Also, EPIPs are topics tested on the
NRC initial examination using written
examination questions and JPMs
sampled from K/As in Section 2.4 of the
K/A catalog. Although SNC did not
administer written examination
questions to the 11 applicants to assess
their knowledge of the VEGP Unit 3
EPIPs, SNC did administer more JPMs to
the 11 applicants on the EPIP topics
than they would have taken on an initial
NRC examination at VEGP Unit 3.
Because JPMs are task-based evaluation
tools that require an applicant not only
to demonstrate knowledge of a topic,
but also to perform tasks necessary to
implement the emergency plan, the staff
concludes that JPMs are a sufficient tool
to evaluate the applicants’ knowledge of
the how to implement the VEGP Unit 3
EPIPs following the completion of the
VEGP Unit 3 EPIP training. Because the
JPMs that SNC developed used the same
standards in NUREG–2103, Appendix C,
that are used for NRC initial
examinations, the staff concludes that
SNC tested the 11 applicants on their
knowledge of the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs
using the same standards and passing
criteria that is used for the NRC initial
examinations.
For those differences in plant systems
that were not identified to be ‘‘testable’’
in accordance with the licensee’s
assessment of those K/A’s with
importance ratings greater than 2.5, the
facility licensee will still be required to
ensure that the applicants are effectively
trained and evaluated in accordance
with the facility licensee’s Commission
approved SAT-based training program.
The facility licensee has not requested
an exemption of 10 CFR 55.31(a)(4),
which states:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
Provide evidence that the applicant has
successfully completed the facility licensee’s
requirements to be licensed as an operator or
senior operator and of the facility licensee’s
need for an operator or a senior operator to
perform assigned duties. An authorized
representative of the facility licensee shall
certify this evidence on Form NRC–398,
‘‘Personal Qualification Statement—
Licensee.’’ This certification must include
details of the applicant’s qualifications, and
details on courses of instruction
administered by the facility licensee, and
describe the nature of the training received
at the facility, and the startup and shutdown
experience received. In lieu of these details,
the Commission may accept certification that
the applicant has successfully completed a
Commission-approved training program that
is based on a systems approach to training
and that uses a simulation facility acceptable
to the Commission under 10 CFR 55.45(b) of
this part.
Therefore, when applying for operator
licenses, the facility licensee will need
to certify that the applicants have
completed the facility’s training
program in its entirety, which would
include training on differences in the
design and operation of plant systems
between the two facilities and any
testing/evaluation inherent to the
training program. This approach is
similar to the historical NRC approach
used when adding a second unit to an
operator’s license at a plant with two
comparable units with limited system
differences, as discussed in NUREG–
1021, Section ES–204. Through this
action, the NRC is exempting only the
requirement to pass another NRCapproved examination based on the
licensee’s certification that the
applicants have been re-evaluated on
any test items from the VCSNS Unit 2
examination that were not applicable to
VEGP Unit 3. SNC will need to certify
at a later date when it submits the final
operator license applications (i.e., NRC
Form 398) that the applicants have been
adequately trained and evaluated in
accordance with the VEGP Unit 3
training program.
Because the only testable differences
were related to EPIPs and conduct of
operations, the staff concludes the
written examinations and operating
tests administered to the 11 applicants
at VCSNS Unit 2 were equivalent or
comparable to those administered to the
VEGP Unit 3 applicants for all other
testable subjects. Because SNC
administered an examination that was
comparable in scope and administration
of the NRC examination, staff concludes
that SNC provided an adequate
mechanism to determine whether the 11
applicants demonstrated competency of
the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs and conduct of
operations procedures in lieu of having
the 11 applicants retake any or all
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26167
portions of the NRC initial written
examination and operating test at VEGP
Unit 3. Therefore, the VCSNS Unit 2
examination results plus the results of
the examination SNC administered
together demonstrate that these
applicants have demonstrated that they
are competent to operate VEGP Unit 3,
and therefore, granting the exemption
will not endanger life or property.
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 in
furtherance of its safety and security
mission. These principles focus the NRC
on ensuring safety and security while
appropriately considering the interests
of the NRC’s stakeholders, including the
public and licensees. These principles
include Independence, Openness,
Efficiency, Clarity, and Reliability.
Whether granting an exemption to the
requirement to pass a written
examination and operating test at VEGP
Unit 3 would be in the public interest
depends on the consideration and
balancing of the foregoing factors.
Concerning efficiency, the public has
an interest in 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 which minimizes
the use of resources—which, in turn,
minimizes the costs passed on to the
public—should be considered
acceptable. The 11 applicants each
passed a written examination and
operating test at VCSNS Unit 2 that was
of the same format and scope and that
was also similar, to a large degree, in
content to the examinations given to the
VEGP Unit 3 applicants. As discussed in
this notice, where there were differences
that may have been present in the
examination content related to EPIPs
and conduct of operations procedures,
SNC implemented sufficient methods to
address the significant differences
between the two sites.
In Enclosure 1, Section 5.3, of the
December 20, 2018, letter, SNC
explained that if the exemption is
granted, then training resources will be
available to meet other site training
needs and to ensure trained operations
personnel are available to support
activities at VEGP Unit 3, including fuel
load. The staff will not have to devote
resources to preparing and validating
additional written examinations and
operating tests for these 11 applicants.
Also, these 11 applicants will be able to
remain in the continuing training
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with NOTICES
26168
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 108 / Wednesday, June 5, 2019 / Notices
program for VEGP Unit 3, which will
help to ensure they maintain
proficiency in topics included in the
initial training program and that they
also receive training on any changes
made to the plant design or procedures
prior to fuel load and plant operation.
Therefore, granting the exemption and
transferring the pass letters from VCSNS
Unit 2 to VEGP Unit 3 is an effective
and efficient alternative to requiring the
11 applicants to take a written
examination and operating test to be
licensed at VEGP Unit 3.
Concerning reliability, once
established, regulations 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. Here, where the
staff has already found that the
examinations administered at VCSNS
Unit 2 together with the actions SNC
has taken to ensure the 11 applicants
demonstrated competency to implement
the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs and conduct of
operations procedures are sufficient to
conclude that the 11 applicants have
learned to operate VEGP Unit 3 safely
and competently, the substantive
requirements upon the operator license
applicant are unchanged with the
granting of the exemption. Further, the
public has an interest in reliability in
terms of the stability of the nuclear
planning process. This exemption aids
planning by allowing the 11 applicants
to complete their applications sooner,
with the underlying requirements
essentially unchanged, and could result
in licensing decisions being made
earlier than would be possible if the
applicants had to wait to take a written
examination and operating test at VEGP
Unit 3.
Concerning clarity, there should be a
clear nexus between regulations and
agency goals and objectives whether
explicitly or implicitly stated. Agency
positions should be readily understood
and easily applied. For the reasons
explained herein, the examination
results from the examinations
administered at VCSNS Unit 2 together
with the compensatory actions taken by
SNC to address knowledge gaps related
to EPIPs and conduct of operations
procedures are sufficient to conclude
that these 11 applicants have learned to
operate VEGP Unit 3 safely and
competently, and therefore the
underlying requirements of 10 CFR
55.33(a)(2) are met, and the
requirements in 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) are
not necessary.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:03 Jun 04, 2019
Jkt 247001
The exemption is also consistent with
the principles of Independence and
Openness; the Commission has
independently and objectively
considered the regulatory interests
involved and has explicitly documented
its reasons for issuing the exemption.
Accordingly, on balance the
Commission concludes that the
exemption is in the public interest.
Summary
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, in lieu of the
requirements of 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2), the
Commission will transfer the pass
letters for the 11 applicants listed in
Enclosure 2 of the letter dated April 16,
2019, to VEGP Unit 3, and the
requirement in 55.31(a)(3) is therefore
not necessary for these 11 applicants.
Limitation
The granting of this exemption is
limited to the 11 applicants identified
by docket number in Enclosure 2 of the
April 16, 2019 letter.
Environmental Consideration
This exemption allows the exemption
from the requirements of 10 CFR
55.31(a)(3) and 55.33(a)(2), and allows
11 VCSNS Unit 2 operator license
applicants to transfer their pass letters
for VCSNS Unit 2 to VEGP Unit 3. The
staff evaluated whether there would be
significant environmental impacts
associated with the issuance of the
requested exemption. The 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. The exemption does not
make any changes to the facility or
operating procedures and does not:
• Alter the design, function or
operation of any plant equipment.
Therefore, granting this exemption
would not increase the probability or
consequence of any previously
evaluated accident.
• Create any new accident initiators.
Therefore, granting this exemption does
not create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any
accident previously evaluated.
• Exceed or alter a design basis or
safety limit. Therefore, granting this
exemption does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, there is no significant
hazards consideration related to this
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
exemption. The 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
requirements in 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) and
10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) is authorized by law
and will not endanger life or property
and is otherwise in the public interest.
The Commission will also transfer the
pass letters from VCSNS Unit 2 to VEGP
Unit 3 for the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2
operator license applicants.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day
of May 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anna H. Bradford,
Deputy Director, Division of Licensing, Siting,
and Environmental Analysis, Office of New
Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2019–11688 Filed 6–4–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50–608; NRC–2019–0029]
In the Matter of SHINE Medical
Technologies, Inc.; SHINE Medical
Isotope Production Facility
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Indirect transfer of license;
order.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing an order
approving the indirect transfer of
Construction Permit No. CPMIF–001 for
the SHINE Medical Isotope Production
Facility, resulting from the
establishment of a holding company,
Illuminated Holdings, Inc. The NRC is
also issuing an administrative
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05JNN1.SGM
05JNN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 5, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26163-26168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-11688]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 52-025 and 52-026; NRC-2008-0252]
Southern Nuclear Operating Company Inc; Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant Units 3 and 4
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Exemption; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an
exemption from the requirements of the Commission's regulations that
require a written examination and operating test to be requested and
administered to 11 operator license applicants at Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant (VEGP) Unit 3 in response to a December 20, 2018,
request from Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC). The NRC is
giving these 11 applicants credit for the written examination and
operating test they took and passed after they applied for a license to
operate Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station (VCSNS) Unit 2.
DATES: This exemption was issued on June 5, 2019.
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 Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0252. Address
questions about NRC docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Jennifer Borges;
telephone: 301-287-9127; email: [email protected]. 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 ``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 [email protected]. 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. The request for the
exemption was submitted by letter dated December 20, 2018 and is
available in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML19030A226. The request
was supplemented by letter dated March 4, 2019, and April 16, 2019
(ADAMS Accession Nos. ML19063B575 and ML19121A504, respectively).
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: Chandu Patel, Office of New Reactors,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001;
telephone: 301-415-3025; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
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
(collectively SNC) are the holders of facility Combined License (COL)
Nos. NFP-91 and NPF-92, which authorize the construction and operation
of VEGP Units 3 and 4. The COLs, issued under part 52 of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), provide, among other things,
that the facilities are subject to all rules, regulations, and orders
of the NRC or the Commission now or hereafter in effect. The facilities
consist of two Westinghouse Electric Company (Westinghouse) AP1000
pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) located in Burke County, Georgia.
Appendix D of 10 CFR part 52, ``Design Certification Rule for the
AP1000 Design,'' constitutes the standard design certification for the
Westinghouse AP1000 design, in accordance with 10 CFR part 52, subpart
B. ``Standard design'' is defined in 10 CFR 52.1 as, ``a design which
is sufficiently detailed and complete to support certification or
approval in accordance with subpart B or E of this part, and which is
usable for a multiple number of units or at a multiple number of sites
without reopening or repeating the review.''
Like VEGP Units 3 and 4, VCSNS Units 2 and 3 were also Westinghouse
AP1000 PWRs under construction. The COLs for VCSNS Units 2 and 3 were
issued to South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G) and South
Carolina Public Service Authority (Santee Cooper). After construction
of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ceased in July 2017, SNC hired 11 former VCSNS
Unit 2 operator license applicants who had previously passed both an
NRC written examination and an operating test for VCSNS Unit 2. These
11 applicants each received a notification letter (i.e., a ``pass
letter'') from the NRC following their satisfactory completion of the
written examination and operating test for VCSNS Unit 2. NUREG-1021,
``Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,''
Revision 11, Section ES-501, ``Initial Post-Examination Activities,''
explains the purpose of the notification letter as follows:
A Notification Letter is issued if an applicant has passed the
requisite written examination and operating test in accordance with
10 CFR 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and 55.45, and the applicant's
general medical condition meets the minimum standards under 10 CFR
55.33(a)(1) or may be accommodated with appropriate conditions under
10 CFR 55.33(b), but the applicant has not to-date completed all the
elements of 10 CFR 55.31. This letter notifies the applicant that
his or her license will be issued when the incomplete (deferred)
items are resolved. The regional office will issue a license when
the applicant and/or facility licensee, as appropriate, completes
the deferred items.
Construction of VCSNS Units 2 and 3 ceased before the 11 former
VCSNS Unit 2 operator license applicants completed all of the
requirements in 10 CFR 55.31, and therefore they did not receive
licenses to operate VCSNS Unit 2.
II. Request/Action
Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.11, ``Specific exemptions,'' by letter dated
December 20, 2018, as supplemented by letters dated March 4, 2019, and
April 16, 2019, SNC requested an exemption from the requirements in 10
CFR 55.31(a)(3) and 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) on the behalf of the 11 former
VCSNS Unit 2 operator license applicants that SNC hired following
cessation of construction of VCSNS Units 2 and 3. SNC also requested on
the behalf of these 11 applicants that their pass letters for VCSNS
Unit 2 be transferred to VEGP Unit 3. Enclosure 1 of the December 20,
2018, letter contains SNC's justification for the requested exemptions.
Enclosure 2 of the April 16, 2019, letter identifies the 11 former
VCSNS Unit 2 reactor operator license applicants by name and docket
number.
10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) requires each applicant for an operator's
license to submit a written request that the written examination and
operating test be
[[Page 26164]]
administered to the applicant. This written request must come from an
authorized representative of the facility licensee by which the
applicant will be employed. Section 55.33(a)(2) states in part that the
Commission will approve an initial application for a license if it
finds that the applicant has passed the requisite written examination
and operating test in accordance with 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43
and 55.45. The written exams and operating tests determine whether an
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. Written exams
administered to operator candidates must contain a representative
sample of the topics listed in 10 CFR 55.41(b)(1)-(14), and
additionally, written exams administered to senior operators must
contain a representative sample of the topics listed in 10 CFR
55.43(b)(1)-(7). Operating tests must contain a representative sample
of the topics listed in 10 CFR 55.45(a)(1)-(13).
Additionally, 10 CFR 55.40(a) requires the Commission to use the
criteria in NUREG-1021 in effect 6 six 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 and to evaluate
the written examinations and operating tests prepared by power reactor
facility licensees. Preparing the written examinations and operating
tests using the appropriate knowledge and abilities catalog, in
conjunction with NUREG-1021, ensures that the written exams and
operating tests include a representative sample of the items specified
in 10 CFR 55.41, 55.43, and 55.45.
NUREG-2103, ``Knowledge and Abilities Catalog for Nuclear Power
Plant Operators: Westinghouse AP1000 Pressurized-Water Reactors,'' was
developed specifically for Westinghouse AP1000 PWRs. NUREG-1021,
Section ES-102, ``Purpose and Format of Operator Licensing Examination
Standards,'' states that NUREG-2103 ``provides the basis for developing
content-valid licensing examinations for operators at Westinghouse AP-
1000[supreg] PWRs.'' NUREG-1021, Appendix A, ``Overview of Generic
Examination Concepts,'' explains the concept of content-validity and
states, ``In the case of the NRC examinations, the intent is to measure
the examinee's knowledge and ability (K/A) such that those who pass
will be able to perform the duties of a reactor operator (RO) or senior
reactor operator (SRO) to ensure the safe operation of the plant. . . .
In order to develop valid examinations, the K/As selected for testing
must be linked to and based upon a description of the most important
job duties.'' To that end, the K/A statements in each of the NRC's K/A
catalogs have been rated for their importance to ensure that the plant
is operated in a manner consistent with the health and safety of plant
personnel and the public. The rating scale is from 1 to 5, where a 5 is
considered essential to safe operation. Only K/As with an importance
rating of 2.5 or higher are considered appropriate content for written
examinations and operating tests (unless there is a site-specific
priority that justifies use of the K/A with an importance rating below
2.5).
In accordance with the guidance in NUREG-1021, Section ES-401N,
``Preparing Initial Site-Specific Written Examinations,'' a sample plan
needs to be prepared for each written examination. Section ES-401N
states, ``Systematically and randomly select specific K/A statements
(e.g., K1.03 or A2.11) from NUREG-2103 (for AP-1000[supreg]) . . . to
complete each of the three tiers (i.e., Tier 1, ``Emergency and
Abnormal Plant Evolutions''; Tier 2, ``Plant Systems''; and Tier 3,
``Generic Knowledge and Abilities'') of the applicable examination
outline.'' For the AP1000, NUREG-1021, Form ES-401N-2, ``AP-
1000[supreg] Examination Outline,'' is the applicable examination
outline. Once the written examination outline is complete, written
examination questions can be developed from the K/A statements selected
for the examination as documented on the examination outline.
The K/A catalog is also used to select topics for the operating
test, which consists of an individual walkthrough portion and a
simulator test. The individual walkthrough examinations are commonly
referred to as ``job performance measures'' (JPMs). The individual
walkthrough portion of the operating test consists of two parts,
``Administrative Topics'' and ``Control Room/In-Plant Systems,'' each
of which focuses on specific K/As. In accordance with the guidance in
NUREG-1021, ES-301, ``Preparing Initial Operating Tests,'' K/As for the
administrative topics shall be selected from Section 2 of the
applicable NRC K/A catalog. The administrative topics are conduct of
operations, equipment control, radiation control, and the site's
emergency plan and implementing procedures. The administrative topics
identified in Section 2, ``Generic Knowledges and Abilities,'' of
NUREG-2103 are also sampled on the written examination. Appendix B,
``Written Exam Guidelines,'' and Appendix C, ``Job Performance Measure
Guidelines,'' of NUREG-1021 contain guidance for preparing and
evaluating written examination questions and job performance measures,
respectively.
III. Discussion
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 the regulations of 10 CFR part 55 as it determines
are authorized by law, will not endanger life or property, and 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 the conditions listed therein are met
(i.e., will not endanger life or property and are 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 written examinations and
operating tests; the ``endanger'' and ``public interest'' factors are
addressed in the next sections in this notice.
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.
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 operator
licensing examinations administered as part of the licensing process.
The 11 former VCSNS Unit 2 operator license applicants identified in
Enclosure 2 of the letter dated April 16, 2019, took and passed an NRC
written examination and operating test for VCSNS Unit 2, which was
prepared and evaluated using the criteria in NUREG-1021. The initial
NRC written exams and operating tests administered to applicants for
VEGP Unit 3 were also prepared and evaluated using the criteria in
NUREG-1021. Therefore,
[[Page 26165]]
these 11 applicants took and passed an NRC written examination and
operating test that was of the same structure, scope, and format as
those administered to the operator license applicants at VEGP Unit 3.
Also, the same K/A catalog was used to develop the written exams and
operating tests administered to operator license applicants at both
VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3, and therefore written exams and operating
tests administered at both sites included a representative sample of
content-valid topics for the AP1000 design; the sample of K/As used to
develop written exams and operating tests administered for VCSNS Unit 2
could also have been used to develop exams administered for VEGP Unit
3, and vice versa.
The staff considered whether any differences in the design and
operation of the plant systems at VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3 would
result in significant differences between the simulators used to
administer the operating tests at VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3 at the
time that the 11 applicants received pass letters. Because the AP1000
is designed to be a standard plant, VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3 were
similar in their design and operation. As discussed in Enclosure 1,
Section 4.0, of the letter dated December 20, 2018, the staff approved
the simulators at VEGP Unit 3 and VCSNS Unit 2 as Commission-approved
simulation facilities as discussed in two safety evaluations (ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML16070A301 and ML16203A116, respectively). In those
safety evaluations, the staff concluded that the VCSNS Unit 2
simulation facility and the VEGP Unit 3 simulation facility each
demonstrated sufficient scope and fidelity with the AP1000 reference
plant design control document (DCD) to support approval of the
simulation facilities at both sites for the equitable and consistent
administration of operator licensing examinations. The plant combined
licenses for VCSNS Unit 2 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A092) and VEGP
Unit 3 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A106) state that the COL
applications for both sites incorporate by reference appendix D to 10
CFR part 52, which approves Revision 19 of the AP1000 DCD (ADAMS
Package Accession No. ML11171A500) (i.e., the reference plant DCD). The
safety evaluations also state that the staff determined that the
simulation facilities for both VEGP Unit 3 and VCSNS Unit 2 model the
AP1000 plant systems and also contains the alarms, indications, and
controls needed to operate the AP1000 plant systems. Thus, the staff
concludes that the simulation facilities used to administer the
operating tests to the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2 applicants and the VEGP
Unit 3 applicants each sufficiently modeled the AP1000 plant systems,
alarms, indications, and controls.
In Enclosure 1, Section 2.0, ``Detailed Description,'' of the
letter dated December 20, 2018, SNC explained that the operator
training programs for VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3 were similar and
stated, ``The AP1000 is designed to be a standard plant. VCSNS Unit 2
and VEGP Unit 3 are of similar age and power level, and share the same
vendor and similar design. Training material (e.g., lesson plans,
simulator scenarios, operating procedures) for operators at VCSNS Unit
2 and VEGP Unit 3 was created jointly by SNC and SCE&G using common
procedures and references provided to the utilities by Westinghouse.''
SNC also stated in Enclosure 1, Section 4.0, ``Technical Justification
of Acceptability,'' of the letter dated December 20, 2018,
``Examinations and tests were developed to assess the knowledge,
skills, and abilities needed by operators to perform assigned tasks
common to both VCSNS Unit 2 and VEGP Unit 3.'' Also, in Enclosure 1,
Section 4.0 of the letter dated December 20, 2018 and in the letter
dated March 4, 2019, SNC explained that VEGP Unit 3 instructors who are
certified as senior operators and former VCSNS Unit 2 senior operator
candidates conducted a line-by-line comparison of the operator and
senior operator task lists for both sites. SNC found that all the VEGP
Unit 3 tasks were included on the VCSNS Unit 2 task list. Thus, the 11
former VCSNS Unit 2 operator license applicants were trained to perform
the same tasks as the operator license applicants at VEGP Unit 3 during
the training they received prior to taking the NRC written examination
and operating test. However, SNC also explained that some procedures
cited in the task statements on the task lists for VCSNS Unit 2 were
different than the procedures cited in the task lists for VEGP Unit 3.
Testable differences (i.e., those tasks with K/As rated 2.5 or more in
the K/A catalog) were limited to site-specific emergency planning and
``conduct of operations'' procedures, which include topics related to
plant control, configuration management, and administration of duties
onsite. Specifically, at a public meeting on December 6, 2018 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML18340A087), SNC listed each of the VEGP Unit 3
procedures that were included in the training provided to the 11
applicants.
Because the site-specific emergency planning and conduct of
operations procedures were different at each site, the 11 former VCSNS
Unit 2 operator license applicants may have been trained to perform
tasks necessary to implement the emergency plan and tasks discussed in
the conduct of operations procedures differently than the VEGP Unit 3
applicants. Also, because there are K/As related to emergency plan
implementing procedures (EPIPs) and conduct of operations topics in
Section 2 of NUREG-2103, the written examination questions and
administrative JPMs developed from those K/As may have tested
knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to perform tasks at VCSNS
Unit 2 not relevant to VEGP Unit 3.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the portions of the written
exams and operating tests administered at VCSNS Unit 2 that did not
include K/As from Section 2 of NUREG-2103 related to the site-specific
emergency plan implementing procedures and conduct of operations topics
are also relevant to the design and operation of VEGP Unit 3. Thus, for
those portions of the exams unrelated to site-specific emergency plan
implementing procedures and conduct of operations topics, the 11
individuals have taken and passed a written examination and operating
test that demonstrates that they have learned to operate VEGP Unit 3,
similar to the VEGP Unit 3 operator license applicants who have passed
a written examination and operating test.
As discussed in the next section in this notice, SNC provided
training to the 11 individuals on the VEGP Unit 3 emergency planning
and conduct of operations procedures and administered exams that the
staff has determined are sufficient to evaluate the 11 applicants'
competency on these topics. Thus, the staff concludes that these 11
applicants demonstrated that they have learned to implement the VEGP
Unit 3 emergency plan procedures and the conduct of operations in a
manner similar to how the VEGP Unit 3 operator license applicants did
on the NRC written examination and operating test.
For the reasons explained in this notice, the staff concludes that,
like the VEGP Unit 3 applicants who have passed an NRC written
examination and operating test, the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2 operator
license applicants demonstrated that they have learned to perform the
duties of an operator or senior operator at VEGP Unit 3 by passing an
NRC written examination and operating test at VCSNS Unit 2 and the
additional test(s) administered by SNC specifically to address site-
specific differences in the emergency plan and conduct of operations
procedures.
[[Page 26166]]
Considering the extent to which the knowledge and abilities associated
with the operation of VEGP Unit 3 of the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2
applicants have been assessed consistent with the manner in which VEGP
Unit 3 applicants were assessed, the staff concludes that uniformity
and consistency under the exemption will be maintained, and granting of
the exemption will not alter the basis for the staff's licensing
decisions. Accordingly, the 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
As stated, in part, in 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2), the Commission will
approve an initial application for a license if it finds that the
applicant has passed the requisite written examination and operating
test in accordance with 10 CFR[thinsp]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
examination adequately determines who is competent, those exams are
protective of and do not endanger life or property.
As discussed in the section in this notice, the 11 former VCSNS
Unit 2 operator license applicants took and passed an NRC written
examination and operating test at VCSNS Unit 2 that tested K/As that
are also relevant to the design and operation of VEGP Unit 3, with two
exceptions: Written examination questions and administrative JPMs
developed from K/As in Section 2 of NUREG-2103 that are related to
site-specific emergency plan implementing procedures and conduct of
operations procedures may have tested information that is not relevant
to VEGP Unit 3 due to differences in those procedures at the two sites.
The portions of the VCSNS Unit 2 exams that tested K/As related to the
EPIPs and conduct of operations procedures are not necessarily relevant
to VEGP Unit 3 because the VCSNS Unit 2 procedures were different than
those at VEGP Unit 3. Thus, the staff cannot rely on the previous VCSNS
Unit 2 written examination and operating test results to conclude that
the 11 applicants have demonstrated competency in the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs
and conduct of operations.
However, SNC provided training to the 11 applicants on the VEGP
Unit 3 EPIPs and conduct of operations procedures. In Enclosure 1,
Section 4.0, of the December 20, 2018, letter, SNC stated that it
trained the 11 applicants on the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs using the same
training material that was provided to the VEGP Unit 3 operator license
applicants. These 11 applicants also completed self-study of the VEGP
Unit 3 conduct of operations procedures; VEGP Unit 3 training
instructors were available to assist and answer questions as necessary.
Furthermore, in Enclosure 1, Section 4.0, of the December 20, 2018,
letter, SNC stated that the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2 operator license
applicants and all VEGP Unit 3 applicants who have passed NRC written
exams and operating tests have been enrolled in a continuing training
program at VEGP Unit 3. The continuing training program uses a
systematic approach to training to ensure the applicants maintain
proficiency, and it is accredited by the National Academy for Nuclear
Training.\1\ As discussed in Enclosure 1, Section 2.0, and Section 4.0,
of the December 20, 2018, letter, the continuing training program
curriculum includes training on design and procedure changes as well as
on the site-specific aspects of VEGP Unit 3 plant systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As discussed in NUREG-1021, ES-202, a facility licensee's
training program is considered to be approved by the NRC when it is
accredited by the National Nuclear Accrediting Board (NNAB). The
National Academy for Nuclear Training operates under the auspices of
the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO). It integrates the
training efforts of all U.S. nuclear utilities, the activities of
the NNAB, and the training-related activities of INPO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in Enclosure 1, Section 4.0, of the December 20,
2018, letter, SNC stated that it also administered examinations on the
VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs and the conduct of operations procedures to the 11
applicants, and each of the 11 applicants passed these examinations. In
the March 4, 2019, letter, SNC stated that the minimum passing score
for these examinations was 80 percent, which is the minimum passing
score, or cut score, used on NRC examinations. In the March 4, 2019,
letter, SNC also listed the methods it took to establish examination
security such that the applicants did not have knowledge of the
examination content prior to taking SNC's examinations. These measures
included controlling access to the exam content, counting copies of the
examinations, informing applicants and instructors not to discuss
examination content, and requiring the applicants to sign an
examination integrity statement. The staff concludes these methods are
consistent with the physical security guidelines for examination
integrity in NUREG-1021, ES-201, Attachment 1, ``Exam Security and
Integrity Considerations,'' which were established to prevent the
applicants from having prior knowledge of the content on NRC
examinations.
In Enclosure 1 of the April 16, 2019, letter, SNC explained how the
examinations it administered to these 11 applicants were comparable to
the JPMs and written examination questions they would have otherwise
taken on an NRC examination at VEGP Unit 3.
The exams that SNC administered to the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2
operator license applicants on the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs and the conduct of
operations procedures, immediately following the gap training, included
both JPMs and written test questions. The examinations consisted of a
25-question written exam and a 5-part JPM exam. The written exam
questions met the standards in NUREG-1021, Appendix B, and the JPM
questions met the standards in NUREG-1021, Appendix C. All written test
questions and JPMs were based on and linked to K/A items selected from
NUREG-2103. The importance rating of each K/A item was equal to or
greater than 2.5. The examinations were based on closing the gaps which
were identified during the Systematic Approach to Training based gap
analysis. The K/As selected for the examinations that SNC administered
sampled from all the K/As that SNC identified as testable differences.
K/As from the following sections of NUREG-2103 were sampled: 2.1
Conduct of operations, 2.2 Equipment Control, 2.3 Radiation Control,
and 2.4 Emergency Procedures and Emergency Plan. Subsequently, five
additional JPMs were administered to the 11 applicants listed in the
exemption request. The supplementary JPMs tested the candidates'
knowledge of the conduct of operations procedures. These JPM questions
were linked to K/As, from Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of NUREG-2103,
having an importance rating of 2.5 or higher. The questions met the
standards in NUREG-1021, Appendix C and were written and administered
by trained and experienced instructors. The scores of the supplementary
JPMs were combined with the scores of the initial JPMs to provide an
overall grade for the JPM exam.
Because conduct of operations topics are tested on the NRC initial
examination using written examination
[[Page 26167]]
questions and JPMs sampled from K/As in Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of
the K/A catalog, and because the written examination questions and JPMs
that SNC developed used the same standards in NUREG-2103, Appendices B
and C that are used for NRC initial examinations, the staff concludes
that SNC tested the 11 applicants on their knowledge of the VEGP Unit 3
conduct of operations procedures using the same evaluation methods,
standards, and passing criteria that is used for the NRC initial
examinations. Thus, the written examination questions and JPMs the
applicants took and passed on the VEGP Unit 3 conduct of operations
procedures were comparable to those they would otherwise take on an NRC
examination administered at VEGP Unit 3. Therefore, the staff concludes
that SNC sufficiently evaluated the 11 applicants' knowledge of and
competency applying the VEGP Unit 3 conduct of operations procedures.
Also, EPIPs are topics tested on the NRC initial examination using
written examination questions and JPMs sampled from K/As in Section 2.4
of the K/A catalog. Although SNC did not administer written examination
questions to the 11 applicants to assess their knowledge of the VEGP
Unit 3 EPIPs, SNC did administer more JPMs to the 11 applicants on the
EPIP topics than they would have taken on an initial NRC examination at
VEGP Unit 3. Because JPMs are task-based evaluation tools that require
an applicant not only to demonstrate knowledge of a topic, but also to
perform tasks necessary to implement the emergency plan, the staff
concludes that JPMs are a sufficient tool to evaluate the applicants'
knowledge of the how to implement the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs following the
completion of the VEGP Unit 3 EPIP training. Because the JPMs that SNC
developed used the same standards in NUREG-2103, Appendix C, that are
used for NRC initial examinations, the staff concludes that SNC tested
the 11 applicants on their knowledge of the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs using the
same standards and passing criteria that is used for the NRC initial
examinations.
For those differences in plant systems that were not identified to
be ``testable'' in accordance with the licensee's assessment of those
K/A's with importance ratings greater than 2.5, the facility licensee
will still be required to ensure that the applicants are effectively
trained and evaluated in accordance with the facility licensee's
Commission approved SAT-based training program. The facility licensee
has not requested an exemption of 10 CFR 55.31(a)(4), which states:
Provide evidence that the applicant has successfully completed
the facility licensee's requirements to be licensed as an operator
or senior operator and of the facility licensee's need for an
operator or a senior operator to perform assigned duties. An
authorized representative of the facility licensee shall certify
this evidence on Form NRC-398, ``Personal Qualification Statement--
Licensee.'' This certification must include details of the
applicant's qualifications, and details on courses of instruction
administered by the facility licensee, and describe the nature of
the training received at the facility, and the startup and shutdown
experience received. In lieu of these details, the Commission may
accept certification that the applicant has successfully completed a
Commission-approved training program that is based on a systems
approach to training and that uses a simulation facility acceptable
to the Commission under 10 CFR 55.45(b) of this part.
Therefore, when applying for operator licenses, the facility
licensee will need to certify that the applicants have completed the
facility's training program in its entirety, which would include
training on differences in the design and operation of plant systems
between the two facilities and any testing/evaluation inherent to the
training program. This approach is similar to the historical NRC
approach used when adding a second unit to an operator's license at a
plant with two comparable units with limited system differences, as
discussed in NUREG-1021, Section ES-204. Through this action, the NRC
is exempting only the requirement to pass another NRC-approved
examination based on the licensee's certification that the applicants
have been re-evaluated on any test items from the VCSNS Unit 2
examination that were not applicable to VEGP Unit 3. SNC will need to
certify at a later date when it submits the final operator license
applications (i.e., NRC Form 398) that the applicants have been
adequately trained and evaluated in accordance with the VEGP Unit 3
training program.
Because the only testable differences were related to EPIPs and
conduct of operations, the staff concludes the written examinations and
operating tests administered to the 11 applicants at VCSNS Unit 2 were
equivalent or comparable to those administered to the VEGP Unit 3
applicants for all other testable subjects. Because SNC administered an
examination that was comparable in scope and administration of the NRC
examination, staff concludes that SNC provided an adequate mechanism to
determine whether the 11 applicants demonstrated competency of the VEGP
Unit 3 EPIPs and conduct of operations procedures in lieu of having the
11 applicants retake any or all portions of the NRC initial written
examination and operating test at VEGP Unit 3. Therefore, the VCSNS
Unit 2 examination results plus the results of the examination SNC
administered together demonstrate that these applicants have
demonstrated that they are competent to operate VEGP Unit 3, and
therefore, granting the exemption will not endanger life or property.
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 in furtherance of
its safety and security mission. These principles focus the NRC on
ensuring safety and security while appropriately considering the
interests of the NRC's stakeholders, including the public and
licensees. These principles include Independence, Openness, Efficiency,
Clarity, and Reliability. Whether granting an exemption to the
requirement to pass a written examination and operating test at VEGP
Unit 3 would be in the public interest depends on the consideration and
balancing of the foregoing factors.
Concerning efficiency, the public has an interest in 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 which minimizes the use of resources--which, in
turn, minimizes the costs passed on to the public--should be considered
acceptable. The 11 applicants each passed a written examination and
operating test at VCSNS Unit 2 that was of the same format and scope
and that was also similar, to a large degree, in content to the
examinations given to the VEGP Unit 3 applicants. As discussed in this
notice, where there were differences that may have been present in the
examination content related to EPIPs and conduct of operations
procedures, SNC implemented sufficient methods to address the
significant differences between the two sites.
In Enclosure 1, Section 5.3, of the December 20, 2018, letter, SNC
explained that if the exemption is granted, then training resources
will be available to meet other site training needs and to ensure
trained operations personnel are available to support activities at
VEGP Unit 3, including fuel load. The staff will not have to devote
resources to preparing and validating additional written examinations
and operating tests for these 11 applicants. Also, these 11 applicants
will be able to remain in the continuing training
[[Page 26168]]
program for VEGP Unit 3, which will help to ensure they maintain
proficiency in topics included in the initial training program and that
they also receive training on any changes made to the plant design or
procedures prior to fuel load and plant operation. Therefore, granting
the exemption and transferring the pass letters from VCSNS Unit 2 to
VEGP Unit 3 is an effective and efficient alternative to requiring the
11 applicants to take a written examination and operating test to be
licensed at VEGP Unit 3.
Concerning reliability, once established, regulations 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. Here, where the staff has already found that the
examinations administered at VCSNS Unit 2 together with the actions SNC
has taken to ensure the 11 applicants demonstrated competency to
implement the VEGP Unit 3 EPIPs and conduct of operations procedures
are sufficient to conclude that the 11 applicants have learned to
operate VEGP Unit 3 safely and competently, the substantive
requirements upon the operator license applicant are unchanged with the
granting of the exemption. Further, the public has an interest in
reliability in terms of the stability of the nuclear planning process.
This exemption aids planning by allowing the 11 applicants to complete
their applications sooner, with the underlying requirements essentially
unchanged, and could result in licensing decisions being made earlier
than would be possible if the applicants had to wait to take a written
examination and operating test at VEGP Unit 3.
Concerning clarity, there should be a clear nexus between
regulations and agency goals and objectives whether explicitly or
implicitly stated. Agency positions should be readily understood and
easily applied. For the reasons explained herein, the examination
results from the examinations administered at VCSNS Unit 2 together
with the compensatory actions taken by SNC to address knowledge gaps
related to EPIPs and conduct of operations procedures are sufficient to
conclude that these 11 applicants have learned to operate VEGP Unit 3
safely and competently, and therefore the underlying requirements of 10
CFR 55.33(a)(2) are met, and the requirements in 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) are
not necessary.
The exemption is also consistent with the principles of
Independence and Openness; the Commission has independently and
objectively considered the regulatory interests involved and has
explicitly documented its reasons for issuing the exemption.
Accordingly, on balance the Commission concludes that the exemption
is in the public interest.
Summary
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, in lieu of the requirements of 10 CFR
55.33(a)(2), the Commission will transfer the pass letters for the 11
applicants listed in Enclosure 2 of the letter dated April 16, 2019, to
VEGP Unit 3, and the requirement in 55.31(a)(3) is therefore not
necessary for these 11 applicants.
Limitation
The granting of this exemption is limited to the 11 applicants
identified by docket number in Enclosure 2 of the April 16, 2019
letter.
Environmental Consideration
This exemption allows the exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR
55.31(a)(3) and 55.33(a)(2), and allows 11 VCSNS Unit 2 operator
license applicants to transfer their pass letters for VCSNS Unit 2 to
VEGP Unit 3. The staff evaluated whether there would be significant
environmental impacts associated with the issuance of the requested
exemption. The 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. The
exemption does not make any changes to the facility or operating
procedures and does not:
Alter the design, function or operation of any plant
equipment. Therefore, granting this exemption would not increase the
probability or consequence of any previously evaluated accident.
Create any new accident initiators. Therefore, granting
this exemption does not create the possibility of a new or different
kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.
Exceed or alter a design basis or safety limit. Therefore,
granting this exemption does not involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety.
Therefore, there is no significant hazards consideration related to
this exemption. The 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 requirements in 10 CFR
55.33(a)(2) and 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) is authorized by law and will not
endanger life or property and is otherwise in the public interest.
The Commission will also transfer the pass letters from VCSNS Unit
2 to VEGP Unit 3 for the 11 former VCSNS Unit 2 operator license
applicants.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of May 2019.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Anna H. Bradford,
Deputy Director, Division of Licensing, Siting, and Environmental
Analysis, Office of New Reactors.
[FR Doc. 2019-11688 Filed 6-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P