[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 17, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52657-52668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-26108]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 201 / Wednesday, October 17, 2001 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 52657]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 55
RIN 3150-AG40
Operator License Eligibility and Use of Simulation Facilities in
Operator Licensing
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations to permit applicants for operator and senior operator
licenses to fulfill a portion of the required experience prerequisites
by manipulating a plant-referenced simulator as an alternative to
manipulation of the controls of the actual nuclear power plant. This
change, along with other amendments contained in this rule, takes
advantage of improvements in simulator technology and reduces
unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The final rule is effective November 16, 2001.
ADDRESSES: The final rule and any related documents are available on
the NRC's rulemaking Website at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. For
information about the interactive rulemaking Web site, contact Carol
Gallagher, 301-415-5905 (electronic mail: [email protected])
Copies of certain documents related to this rulemaking may be
examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD. These same documents may be viewed and downloaded
electronically via the rulemaking Web site. Documents created or
received at the NRC after April 1, 2000, are also available
electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site,
the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agency Document Access and
Management System (ADAMS) that provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents. For more information, contact the NRC Public Document
Room (PDR) Reference staff at 301-415-4737 or toll-free at 1-800-397-
4209, or by e-mail at [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Trimble, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone 301-415-2942, or by electronic mail to
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
amending the regulations that govern operators' licenses to allow
applicants for operator and senior operator licenses to fulfill a
portion of the required experience prerequisites by manipulating a
plant-referenced simulator as an alternative to manipulation of the
controls of the actual nuclear power plant. This final rule also
removes requirements for facility licensee certification of their
simulation facilities and routine submittal of reports to the NRC for
review that identify any uncorrected performance test failures and a
related schedule for correction. Continued assurance of simulator
fidelity is provided because a facility licensee must: (1) Conduct
performance testing and retain results for four years; (2) correct
modeling and hardware discrepancies and discrepancies identified from
scenario validation and from performance testing; (3) make the results
of any uncorrected performance test failures available onsite; and (4)
maintain the provisions for license application, examination, and test
integrity consistent with Section 55.49. The final rule also revises
two definitions and adds clarity to the regulations by relocating
language relating to the use of a simulation facility to a new section
dedicated to ``Simulation Facilities.'' Lastly, the final rule
facilitates voluntary licensee transition to an improved approach to
simulator testing as described in an American National Standards
Institute/American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) standard, ANSI/ANS-3.5-
1998, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training and
Examination.'' Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide 1.149, ``Nuclear Power
Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Training and License
Examinations,'' (RG 1.149) endorses this standard and is being
published in conjunction with this final rule.
Background
Prior to 1987, the Commission's regulatory position was that
simulator experience was not necessarily equivalent to actual nuclear
power plant operating experience. The industry and the public supported
this position, citing inherent problems and uncertainties in simulator
technology, and the few plant-specific simulators in existence at the
time.
The Commission became increasingly aware of the need to update its
operator licensing requirements, in particular the need to clarify the
extent to which simulators may be used in the operator licensing
process. In 1987, the Commission amended substantial portions of 10 CFR
part 55 to (1) formalize the requirement for license applicants to
perform five significant manipulations to control reactivity or power
level on the actual plant as a prerequisite for license eligibility;
(2) require that every operating test be administered in a plant walk-
through and a simulation facility that was either approved by the
Commission or certified by the facility licensee as a plant-referenced
simulator; and (3) require submittal of periodic performance tests on
the simulation facility, and maintenance of records pertaining to the
conduct of these tests and the results obtained. (See 52 FR 9453; March
25, 1987). Consequently, facility licensees began to develop simulators
for operator licensing and training which were certified by licensees
to be in accordance with national standard ANSI/ANS-3.5-1985, ``Nuclear
Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training.'' Eventually,
every facility with a current Part 50 license procured a plant-
referenced simulator and submitted a certification for its use to the
Commission.
Since 1987, technology has allowed advances in the simulators'
computing capability, model complexity, and fidelity. Consequently, the
Commission has fewer concerns regarding the equivalence of experience
gained on simulation facilities and that obtained
[[Page 52658]]
on the actual plant. Additionally, simulator testing has changed
considerably since the current rule was published in 1987.
Specifically, the ANS 3.5 Standard Committee Working Group (WG)
initiated a new, improved approach to simulator testing with the
issuance of ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use
in Operator Training and Examination,'' which employs a scenario-based
testing philosophy that is inconsistent with the testing assumptions
and requirements of the current rule. The Commission has reviewed this
new industry standard, found it acceptable, and determined that the
existing regulatory requirements contain prescriptive aspects that are
impediments to industry adoption of the 1998 standard and are no longer
necessary to support required training and examination programs. The
Commission has also determined that the current requirements for
facility licensee certification of plant referenced simulators and
routine submittal of simulation facility performance test failures,
with a schedule for corrections, are unnecessarily burdensome for
licensees. As an alternate approach, the NRC can review plant-
referenced simulators for acceptability and performance test results of
simulation facilities before the simulator facility is used for
operating tests.
Discussion
With this final rule, the Commission is updating its positions
regarding the use, certification, and reporting requirements for
performance testing of simulation facilities. The final rule amends 10
CFR part 55 to take advantage of improvements in simulator technology
and to reduce unnecessary regulatory burden on licensees by:
(1) Allowing applicants for operator and senior operator licenses
to fulfill a portion of the required experience prerequisites by
manipulating a plant-referenced simulator as an alternative to
manipulation of the controls of the actual nuclear power plant,
(2) Removing current requirements for facility licensee
certification of their simulation facilities, and
(3) Eliminating the necessity for routine submittal of reports to
the NRC for review that identify any uncorrected performance test
failures and a schedule for correction.
Finally, the final rule facilitates voluntary licensee transition
to an improved approach to simulator testing as described in industry
standard ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in
Operator Training and Examination.'' Revision 3 to Regulatory Guide
1.149, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator
Training and License Examinations,'' endorses this standard and is
being published in conjunction with this final rule.
Performance of Control Manipulations on the Plant-Referenced Simulator
The current rule requires that applicants for operator and senior
operator licenses perform five significant control manipulations that
affect reactivity or power level on the actual plant. This final rule
will allow applicants to perform the manipulations either on a plant-
referenced simulator or on the actual plant at the facility licensee's
discretion. When simulators are used to provide for performance of
control manipulations, the final rule requires that: (1) Simulator
models replicate the nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics of
the most recent core load in the nuclear power reference plant for
which a license is being sought; and (2) significant control
manipulations are completed without procedural exceptions, simulator
performance exceptions, or deviation from the approved training
scenario sequence. These requirements ensure that simulator experience
replicates evolutions on the plant and that license applicants receive
the same overall experience in safe plant operation as they would on
the plant itself.
The use of a plant-referenced simulator of appropriate fidelity for
these manipulations is acceptable because of improvements in simulator
technology and 14 years of successful experience in using simulators
after the 1987 revision of part 55. Plant-referenced simulators provide
operator training and realistic examination scenarios on reactivity
manipulations, other normal and abnormal procedure operations, complex
plant operations, and emergency operating procedure evolutions,
including the management of simultaneous tasks and faulted conditions.
This final rule will allow license applicants to fulfill a portion of
the required experience requirements in the facility's plant-referenced
simulator without disrupting the operation of the actual plant.
During the public comment period, the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI) and several additional commenters recommended changing proposed
Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(A), which would have required that the simulator
model replicate the plant ``at the time of the applicant's operating
test.'' The commenters stated that the words ``at the time of the
applicant's operating test'' could unnecessarily restrict the
candidate's opportunities to conduct reactivity manipulations. The
commenters also stated that the proposed language would create a
problem if a refueling outage occurs near the time the applicant was
scheduled for the operating test or if the date of the operating test
changed. The Commission acknowledges the concern that the proposed
wording of Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(A) (Sec. 55.46(c)(2)(i) of the final
rule) would have restricted the candidates' opportunities to conduct
the reactivity manipulations. The Commission does not intend to be
unduly restrictive with regard to the timing for conduct of the five
significant control manipulations on a plant-referenced simulator.
Therefore, the Commission has revised Sec. 55.46(c)(2)(i) of the final
rule to require the plant-referenced simulator to ``replicate the most
recent core load in the nuclear power reference plant for which a
license is being sought,'' while deleting the words ``at the time of
the applicant's operating test.'' It is the Commission's intent that
the phrase ``most recent'' means the current core or if the plant is in
a refueling outage, the core just previous to the outage.
Simulator Certification and Routine Submittal of Performance Test
Reports
The current rule requires licensees who use plant-referenced
simulators to certify on NRC Form 474, ``Simulation Facility
Certification,'' that their simulator meets Commission regulations. The
current regulations also require that test documentation and test
schedules be submitted quadrennially. Currently licensed power reactor
facilities have licensee-certified, plant-referenced simulators and the
NRC staff's experience has shown that the submitted quadrennial reports
are of minimal value.
The final rule eliminates current requirements in Sec. 55.45(b)
for: (1) Facility licensee certification of their simulation
facilities, and (2) routine submittal of reports to the NRC for review
which identify any uncorrected performance test failures and a schedule
for correction. Continued assurance of simulator fidelity is provided,
in the final rule in new Sec. 55.46(d), by requiring licensees to: (1)
Conduct performance testing and retain results for four years, (2)
correct modeling and hardware discrepancies and discrepancies
identified from scenario validation and from performance testing, (3)
make the results of any uncorrected performance test failures available
for NRC review, and (4) maintain the provisions for license
application, examination, and test integrity consistent with Section
[[Page 52659]]
55.49. In addition, NRC reviews or inspections to ensure compliance
with final rule requirements at simulation facilities will maintain
safety without the unnecessary burden of certification and submittal of
simulator performance test reports. If NRC reviews associated with
operating tests for operator license applicants or inspections
completed using the Requalification Inspection Procedure as part of the
oversight process find that a plant-referenced simulator is unsuitable
because it does not demonstrate expected plant performance or meet the
requirement specified in items (1) and (4) above, then the simulator
may not be used to conduct operating tests for operator license
applicants, requalification training, or control manipulations until
the simulator is made suitable. In any case, simulation facilities,
including plant-referenced simulators, must additionally meet (2) and
(3) of the requirements of Sec. 55.46(d) for continued assurance of
simulator fidelity. Further, NUREG-1021, Revision 8, ``Operator
Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors,'' provides detailed
policies, procedures, and practices for examining applicants for
reactor operator and senior reactor operator licenses. NUREG-1021
essentially ensures that simulator scenarios for examinations are
completed without procedure exceptions or simulator performance
exceptions.
Facility licensees have trained licensed operators and applicants
for operator and senior operator licenses on plant-referenced
simulators that were certified in accordance with the 1985 edition of
ANSI/ANS-3.5, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator
Training and Examination.'' This national industry standard specifies
full-scope, stand-alone testing of system models and simulator training
capabilities as part of initial simulator acceptance testing. Facility
licensees have continued to test their plant-referenced simulators
during initial development and to submit test schedules and reports on
a quadrennial basis. The industry's approach to computer software
development and simulator testing has changed considerably since 1987
through the issuance of the 1998 version of ANSI/ANS-3.5. The standard
has moved away from continued full-scope, stand-alone testing of system
models and simulator training capabilities toward a scenario-based
testing and quality-control philosophy.
For facility licensees that adopt the 1998 revised national
standard, the final rule revision allows for a change in the type of
performance testing from a prescriptive simulator testing program in
the context of initial simulator procurement to a scenario-based and
operability performance testing program. The final rule does not
require facility licensees to adopt the 1998 version of ANSI/ANS-3.5 or
to modify existing simulator support programs or practices. Because the
final rule continues to require performance testing, facility licensees
that do not adopt the 1998 revised national standard will perform the
same type of performance testing as before. The final rule will allow
facility licensees to adjust their performance test programs to their
end-user needs, as defined by their accredited systems-approach-to-
training (SAT) programs, or to conform their existing simulator
programs to the new revision of ANSI/ANS-3.5.
This rule and the associated Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.149,
``Nuclear Power Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator Training and
License Examinations,'' that endorses ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 without
exceptions, reduces inconsistencies between the operational needs of
facility licensee programs and the simulator testing requirements.
Clarification of Part 55 Definitions
In 10 CFR 55.4, ``Definitions,'' the proposed rule would have
defined performance testing as follows: ``Performance testing means
validation, scenario-based, or operability testing conducted to verify
a simulation facility's performance as compared to actual or predicted
reference plant performance.'' During the public comment period, the
ANS 3.5 Standards Committee WG recommended that the proposed definition
be changed to eliminate the word ``validation.'' The Commission agrees
with that suggestion and, further, the Commission has reconsidered the
inclusion of the phrase ``* * * scenario-based, or operability * * *''
because it could be interpreted as limiting a facility licensee to the
use of the ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 standard. Therefore, the Commission has
retained the original definition of performance testing in the final
rule as ``Performance testing means testing conducted to verify a
simulation facility's performance as compared to actual or predicted
reference plant performance.''
The definition of ``plant-referenced simulator'' is revised to
remove the last sentence and to relocate the substance of that
sentence--a ``plant-referenced simulator demonstrates expected plant
response to operator input, and to normal, transient, and accident
conditions to which the simulator has been designed to respond''--to
new Sec. 55.46(c)(1). This is a conforming change that provides clarity
to the regulation. The first sentence of the definition remains the
same.
The term ``reference plant'' is defined in Sec. 55.4 as ``the
specific nuclear power plant from which a simulation facility's control
room configuration, system control arrangement, and design data are
derived.'' This definition remains the same in the final rule and
continues to provide clarification that for a simulation facility, a
specific plant (unit) at a multi-plant (unit) site is the ``reference
plant.'' The Commission realizes that the use of inconsistent
terminology can be confusing and has made clarifications where
appropriate in preparing the final rule. However, the Commission
intends to re-evaluate the use of the term ``reference plant'' in the
future.
The term ``simulation facility'' is revised to include part-task
and limited-scope simulator devices so that these devices can be used
if a request were received and approved by the Commission for their
use. The definition of ``simulation facility'' is also revised to
remove ``the plant'' as a potential ``simulation facility.'' Use of
``the plant'' is now addressed in the new Sec. 55.46(b). This is a
conforming change that provides clarity to the regulation. The intent
remains to allow facility licensees to use the plant, if approved, for
the administration of the operating test and to meet experience
requirements for applicants for operator and senior operator licenses.
This conforming change is intended to continue to provide the
regulatory flexibility that facility licensees have had since 1987.
New Section 55.46
The final rule includes administrative changes to move the
requirements for the use of simulation facilities from Sec. 55.45 to a
new Sec. 55.46, ``Simulation Facilities.'' Former Secs. 55.45(b) (4)
and (5) dealing with simulators have been separated from Sec. 55.45 and
consolidated in the new Sec. 55.46. This is simply an administrative
change to clarify the existing rule by separating requirements
concerning simulation facilities from requirements in Sec. 55.45
concerning operating tests.
Related Activities
To implement this rule the NRC staff is also developing revisions
to the process for initial licensing, requalification, and examination
of reactor and senior operators, including updating NUREG-1021,
Revision 8, and the ``Licensed Operator Requalification Program
Inspection Procedure,'' (IP-
[[Page 52660]]
71111.11) of the reactor oversight process. Training of examiners will
be conducted as appropriate. The NRC staff expects that these revisions
will be completed one year from the date the final rule is published.
Since the proposed rulemaking notice, the staff has determined that it
is not necessary to revise and update NUREG-1262, ``Answers to
Questions at Public Meetings Regarding Implementation of Title 10, Code
of Federal Regulations, part 55 on Operator's Licenses'' and NUREG-
1258, ``Evaluation Procedure for Simulation Facilities Certified Under
10 CFR 55.'' Instead of revising the NUREG's listed above, answers to
questions from a public meeting/workshop concerning this final
rulemaking will be posted on the NRC's homepage at www.nrc.gov in the
Nuclear Reactors icon under ``Principal Reactor Regulatory Programs''
under ``Operator Licensing Program.'' Additionally, the answers to any
questions will be available and may be viewed as discussed above under
the heading ADDRESSES.
Revisions to Regulatory Guide REG 1.149, Revision 3
A draft version of the associated regulatory guide (DG-1080,
Proposed Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.149) that proposed endorsing
ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 was made available for public comment (64 FR 45985).
The final Regulatory Guide 1.149 is being made available concurrently
with this final amendment. The regulatory guide is available for
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or it may be viewed and
downloaded electronically through the interactive rulemaking web site
established by the NRC for this rulemaking, as discussed above under
the heading ADDRESSES. Single copies may be obtained from David
Trimble, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone 301-415-2942, or by
electronic mail to [email protected].
Analysis of Public Comments
The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 3,
2000 (65 FR 41021), and the public comment period ended on September
18, 2000. The Commission received 15 comment letters on the proposed
rule: 3 comments from individuals, 9 from nuclear power plant licensees
(utilities), 1 from a utility organization (Nuclear Energy Institute),
1 from a licensed operator organization (the Professional Reactor
Operators Society (PROS)), and 1 from a national consensus standard
working group (Standards Committee WG ANS-3.5). One letter with a
request for an extension to the comment deadline was also received. No
public comments were received from any State agency. No public meetings
were held to discuss the proposed rule nor were any requested. However,
the general status of the proposed rule was discussed at NEI Initial
Operator Licensing Focus Group Meetings open to the public. The comment
letters may be viewed on the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/rule.html, under ``NRC Rulemaking Web Site,'' at ``News, Information
and Contacts for Current Rulemaking.''
Twelve of the 15 commenters expressed support for amending the
rule. Several of the commenters provided specific recommendations for
changes to the proposed rule. The comments and responses were grouped
into five categories: (1) General support of the proposed rule, (2)
general opposition to the proposed rule, (3) reactivity manipulations,
(4) simulator issues, including certification of simulation facilities,
and (5) definitions and wording.
General Support of the Proposed Rule
Comment 1-1: The majority of commenters supported the proposed
changes to 10 CFR part 55, ``Operator's licenses'' to allow licensed
operator candidate reactivity manipulations on a plant-referenced
simulator as an alternative to use of the actual plant.
Response: No response necessary.
Comment 1-2: The Professional Reactor Operator Society (PROS)
commented that the proposed rule would allow initial license candidates
to perform required reactivity changes on a plant-referenced simulator
is a welcome and acceptable change. PROS stated that the rule does not
specify that license candidates cannot or should not perform
manipulations on the actual plant. The amended rule will simply allow
the requirement for performing five significant control manipulations
that affect reactivity to be performed on either the actual plant or on
the simulation facility.
Response: No response necessary.
Comment 1-3: One commenter stated that hands-on individual
demonstrations of a reactivity manipulation on a simulator would seem
to be a significant benefit of the rule change.
Response: The Commission agrees.
General Opposition to the Proposed Rule
Comment 2-1: One commenter stated that plant owners should not be
able to shirk their responsibility for adequately training new
operators. The commenter noted that there may be an enormous cost
involved with the current rule and although it may be inconvenient, it
does not justify diluting the licensing requirements to the point where
a licensed operator does not even have to operate the real plant. The
current cold license exceptions should not be used as justification
because there are many extra controls and safeguards in place on a new
startup. Another commenter stated that the industry needs clear
guidelines, minimum deviations, and appropriate penalties for any
noncompliance. The commenter also stated that safety dictates that
initial license candidates are given the opportunity to move the plant
without regard to real or perceived costs and that it has always been
hard to put a dollar value on training until past mistakes are
examined. The opportunity for actual reactivity manipulations reduces
the stress-induced error rate, notably during transient conditions when
clear decision-making counts.
Response: The Commission believes that the level of reactor safety
established under the regulations is adequate and that the rule does
not need to be strengthened. The Commission believes that the proposed
changes are justified based not on an extension of the cold license
exceptions (cold license examinations are those administered before the
unit completes pre-operational testing and the initial start up test
program) in the existing regulation, but rather on significant
improvements in simulation technology, including increases in computing
capability, model complexity, and fidelity. In addition, the NRC staff
has conducted and observed operator licensing and requalification
examinations on plant-referenced simulators for approximately 15 years
and has found that scenarios are performed on simulators in a very
realistic manner.
Further, this final rule does not change any of the training
requirements of Sec. 50.120 or the specific licensed operator training
and requalification requirements in Sec. 55.45(a) or Sec. 55.59. The
candidates are still required to spend a substantial amount of time
actually performing the duties of their particular positions in an on-
the-job training environment. In response to the concern that the
industry needs clear guidelines, minimum deviations, and appropriate
penalties for any noncompliance, the Commission believes that the final
rule in conjunction with the regulatory guide endorsing the ANSI/ANS
standard provides clear guidance to the industry.
[[Page 52661]]
Penalties for noncompliance are addressed by the Commission's
enforcement program.
Although the NRC's primary mission is to maintain adequate levels
of reactor safety, it must also give due consideration to the principle
of regulatory efficiency. Because the Commission has concluded that the
proposed regulatory change will not affect the existing level of
reactor safety, it would be inappropriate not to take advantage of this
opportunity to adopt a regulatory alternative that will minimize the
burden on facility licensees. The Commission concludes that there is no
measurable net benefit in requiring facility licensees to have license
candidates perform reactivity control manipulations on the plant for
experience purposes when doing so can entail significant expense for
the facility licensee and a measure of risk to plant operations and
safety. Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this
comment.
Reactivity Manipulations
Comment 3-1: The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and several
additional commenters recommended changing proposed
Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(A), which requires that the simulator model
replicate the plant ``at the time of the applicant's operating test.''
The commenters recommended that the words ``at the time of the
applicant's operating test'' be deleted because this could
unnecessarily restrict the candidate's opportunities to conduct
reactivity manipulations to a short time just before the operating
test. The commenters also stated that this would be a problem if a
refueling outage occurs near the time the applicant was scheduled for
the operating test or if the date of the operating test changed.
Response: The Commission agrees with this comment as discussed
above in the ``Discussion'' section under ``Performance of Control
Manipulations on the Plant-Referenced Simulator.'' This change has been
incorporated in the final rule.
Comment 3-2: The NEI and several additional commenters recommended
that because plant-referenced simulators are modeled to one plant, the
reference plant, the regulatory text should be clarified to indicate
that the simulator modeling is for the referenced plant.
Response: The Commission agrees with NEI's recommendation that the
regulatory text be clarified to indicate that the simulator core model
will replicate the reference plant for the simulation facility. This
change has been incorporated in the final rule.
Comment 3-3: The NEI and several additional commenters recommended
that training objectives could be met if the models reasonably
represent the reference plant at the time of the manipulations.
Therefore, they recommend that Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(A) be changed to
read: ``The plant-referenced simulator uses models relating to nuclear
and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that reasonably represent the
core load that exists in the nuclear power reference plant for the
facility at which a license is being sought; and ...'' Another
commenter stated that ``replicate'' could be misleading in a more legal
application. Another commenter stated that in discussing the
requirements of the simulator that will be used for control
manipulations, the terms ``replicate,'' ``represent,'' and ``reasonably
represent'' are used interchangeably.
Response: The Commission does not agree with NEI's recommendation
that the simulator core model ``reasonably represent'' rather than
``replicate'' the core load that exists in the reference plant. The
Commission believes that the terminology in the proposed rule is
appropriate and consistent with ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, ``Nuclear Power
Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training and Examination,'' the
current industry consensus standard. It means that the plant-referenced
simulator's nuclear and thermal-hydraulics models operate within the
tolerances specified in section 4.1.3, ``Steady-State and Normal
Evolutions'' of the industry standard. The commenter did not explain
and the Commission does not understand why ``replicate could be
misleading in a more legal application.'' On the contrary, the NRC
staff believes that using different terminology in the regulation than
in the industry standard would be more confusing and misleading.
Comment 3-4: One commenter thought that the five reactivity
manipulations should be ``evaluated'' manipulations. The commenter also
stated that perhaps three of the five reactivity manipulations should
be required to be evaluated by senior management.
Response: The Commission agrees with the commenter's suggestion
that the five reactivity manipulations should be ``evaluated''
manipulations and believes that this expectation is already addressed
in the Commission's regulations and guidance documents. Section 55.4,
``Definitions'' describes the five elements of a systems approach to
training, including the requirement to evaluate the trainees' mastery
of the objectives during training, that apply to all licensed operator
training programs. Section 4.6 of NUREG-1220, ``Training Review
Criteria and Procedures,'' that provides direction to NRC staff for
reviewing training programs to verify compliance with the regulations,
clarifies the Commission's expectations regarding the evaluation of
tasks performed to ensure that the trainees master the actual job
performance requirements. The Commission believes that requiring senior
management to evaluate the reactivity manipulations would be overly
prescriptive while adding little value. In practice, whenever license
applicants are engaged in on-the-job training (OJT) in the actual
control room, they have to be closely supervised and evaluated by the
on-shift licensed operators. Generally, the more safety-significant
activities, including reactivity and power changes, are more closely
supervised and evaluated than others, regardless of whether they are
performed in the actual control room or the simulator.
The Commission encourages communication and cooperation between
plant operations and training management when making determinations
regarding the license applicants' mastery of the training objectives
and job requirements and, ultimately, their readiness for the licensing
examination. Under Sec. 55.31(a)(4), an authorized representative of
the facility licensee, usually the plant manager or higher, must
certify on the license application that the applicant has successfully
completed the facility licensee's requirements to be licensed as an
operator or senior operator. Based on the foregoing, no changes are
warranted in response to this comment.
Comment 3-5: One commenter indicated that it would appear that
there are so many required reactivity manipulations for each operator
that the time constraint alone would preclude all manipulations from
being currently performed on the reactor. The commenter stated that the
simulator must already be used extensively in meeting reactivity
manipulations requirements.
Response: Although it is true that simulators are already being
used extensively for operator training and to practice reactivity
manipulations, the control manipulations that are required by the
regulations cannot be performed on the simulator, though, a few
exceptions to this rule have recently been granted. These five required
significant control manipulations, which affect reactivity or power
level, must be performed by applicants, as trainees at the controls of
the facility for
[[Page 52662]]
which a license is sought. The Commission believes that the proposed
changes to the regulation will promote the original intent of the
control manipulation requirement.
Comment 3-6: One commenter stated that ``as a minimum, one 10
percent power change should be mandatory prior to an unconditional
license. If plant conditions warrant, a conditional license is issued.
The condition is that an observed manipulation is performed. For those
plants not in compliance with 100 percent of the fidelity issues as
delineated by the guideline, the candidates must perform three 10
percent changes, that would include startups and responses to reactor
trips.'' The commenter also stated that they believed strictly
requiring compliance with fidelity issues will ensure the identified
fidelity issues are addressed.
Response: The commenter appears to address two different issues:
(1) The need for an explicit requirement that the control manipulations
involve at least a 10 percent change and (2) where the simulator is not
``100 percent'' compliant with fidelity requirements, then three 10
percent changes must be accomplished by the operator applicant.
However, no basis was provided for these two proposals. The Commission
does not believe that either proposal is necessary. With regard to the
first issue, neither the current nor the final rule address how much of
a percentage power change is required for the control manipulations.
The first proposal indicates that the commenter believes that the
magnitude of a power level change must be at least 10 percent if it is
to be a meaningful experience for an operator. The Commission believes
that the magnitude of a power level change is a secondary issue. It is
more important that a license candidate understand the operation of the
systems involved and that the experience reinforce that knowledge and
be conducted in an atmosphere as conducive to training as possible. A
simulator setting in many ways is a more optimum setting for gaining
this experience. To address the commenters' apparent concern, it is
more likely that larger magnitude changes can be performed on the
simulator than on the plant. The final rule does not alter the
requirement for every license applicant to complete the control
manipulations on the facility for which a license is sought, it simply
gives facility licensees the flexibility to conduct some or all of the
required manipulations on a plant-referenced simulator, but only if the
simulator satisfies the NRC's core modeling and fidelity requirements.
With regard to the second issue, the final rule does address the
continued assurance of simulator fidelity issues in Sec. 55.46(d) and
also requires simulator fidelity to be demonstrated so that significant
control manipulations can be completed without procedural exceptions,
simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the approved
training scenario sequence.
Comment 3-7: One commenter thought that in the past the Commission
has allowed utilities to deviate from the intent of the reactivity
manipulation requirements. This allowed the utilities to use a wide
range of interpretations for the required reactivity manipulations. The
commenter also thought that deviations had become the norm rather than
the rule. The commenter stated that wholesale deviations from this rule
cannot be made.
Response: NRC expects that the rule is uniformly applied to all
facility licensees. The Commission agrees that deviations cannot be
made. Contrary to the commenters belief, the Commission does not allow
anyone to deviate from the requirements without an exemption.
Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this comment.
Simulator Issues
Comment 4-1: A few commenters stated that an operator's license
should not be issued based on only operating a simulator.
Response: The Commission acknowledges that operating a plant-
referenced simulator is not identical to operating the actual plant
despite all efforts to maximize realism and fidelity. However, today's
plant-referenced simulators are of sufficient quality and fidelity that
significant control manipulations can be completed without procedural
exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the
approved scenario sequence. The Commission does not believe that the
rule will dilute the operators' licensing requirements. The rule will
not change the requirement for every initial license applicant to
complete five significant (power or reactivity) control manipulations,
nor will it allow all of an applicant's training to be ``simulated''
because it does not change the requirement for every applicant to
complete an on-the-job-training (OJT) program. OJT programs include
hands-on experience in shift operations under the direct supervision of
a licensed operator. Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to
this comment.
Comment 4-2: One commenter stated that the difference between
operating a real plant and a simulator is ``stress'' and further noted
that the Commission did not mention the difference in operator stress
while operating the real plant versus a simulator. Another commenter
stated that the fidelity of the simulator is not proportional to the
induced stressed from real plant operations.
Response: The level of stress experienced by licensed operators
while performing the required significant control manipulations and
other routine, controlled, and supervised evolutions are, in the
Commission's opinion, insignificant when compared with the level of
stress that they experience while responding to major plant transients
(real or simulated as part of an examination scenario) that require the
implementation of emergency operating procedures and response plans.
Consequently, the Commission believes that there is little value in
trying to distinguish between the levels of stress associated with
routine control manipulations performed on a plant-referenced simulator
and the actual plant. While undergoing OJT, the license applicants will
still be given many opportunities to operate the real plant and
experience ``the stress of knowing that the impact of a mistake may be
much more dramatic than a call to `reset the simulator.' '' The NRC
staff has conducted and observed operator licensing and requalification
examinations on plant-referenced simulators for approximately 15 years
and has detected no discernible difference in the operators' and
applicants' demeanor while performing control manipulations in
simulators versus actual control rooms.
Comment 4-3: One commenter stated that the Commission should give
very high priority to comments submitted by qualified operators and
further stated that ``if qualified operators do not believe that plant-
referenced simulators are an adequate replication for this purpose, or
indicate that this proposal is a step toward degrading operator
training, or judge that safety in reactor operation is compromised,
then the rule should not go forward without modifications that can gain
the operators' support.''
Response: The Commission agrees completely and has given high
priority and serious consideration to comments submitted by qualified
operators and to any concerns they have about this amendment. Only one
formerly licensed senior operator and one instructor of licensed
operators submitted comments in general opposition to the rule. PROS,
who submitted comments on behalf of its members, portrayed the change
to the rule as welcome and acceptable.
[[Page 52663]]
Comment 4-4: One commenter thought that with more reliance being
placed on the plant-referenced simulator for operator qualification, it
would seem logical that greater attention is paid to ensure that the
simulator is the best possible replication of the plant. If removal of
current requirements for certification of simulation facilities and
routine submittal of simulator performance test reports to the
Commission is not consistent with greater attention, then the proposal
seems self-contradictory.
Response: The Commission agrees that, when a plant-referenced
simulator is used for operator qualification, there must be assurance
that the simulator is the best possible replication of the plant. The
fact that this rule removes the current regulatory requirements for
facility licensees to certify their simulator facilities and submit
periodic performance test results to the Commission does not mean that
the Commission is reducing the technical requirements for simulator
fidelity. When simulators are used to provide control manipulation
experience, the final rule requires the simulator to utilize models
relating to nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that
replicate the most recent core load in the nuclear power reference
plant for which a license is being sought. It also requires simulator
fidelity to be demonstrated so that significant control manipulations
can be completed without procedure exceptions, simulator performance
exceptions, or deviation from the approved training scenario sequence.
These requirements should ensure that experience gained on the
simulator essentially replicates that obtained from actual control
manipulations on the plant. The final rule simply changes the nature of
the reporting requirements for the performance test reports but does
not eliminate the requirement for performance testing. No changes are
warranted in response to this comment.
Comment 4-5: One commenter noted that there are licensed operators
and senior licensed operators who have never seen or responded to an
actual reactor trip. They should not experience an actual trip for the
first time during real plant operations. The stress-induced error rate
would be unacceptable.
Response: The Commission acknowledges that there may be licensed
operators and senior operators who have never seen or responded to an
actual reactor trip because many plants are experiencing record runs
with unplanned reactor trip rates far below the levels seen several
years ago. This simply highlights the importance of having high-
quality, high-fidelity, plant-referenced simulators that enable
operators to practice normal, abnormal, and emergency evolutions (most
of which would never be possible to perform on the plant) without
procedural or simulator performance exceptions. Although there is no
regulatory requirement to do so, the Commission believes that facility
licensees assign most new and inexperienced operators to crews
containing other operators having greater levels of experience.
Moreover, the Commission has encouraged teamwork between control room
operators and, therefore, in 1987, significantly revised its
requalification examination process to focus primarily on the crews'
ability to successfully accomplish those activities deemed critical to
safe plant operation.
Definitions and Other Rule Wording
Comment 5-1: The Standards Committee WG ANS-3.5 stated that the
ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 Standard defines performance testing as, ``testing
characterized by a comparison of the results of integrated operation of
the simulation facility to actual or predicted reference plant data.
Performance testing encompasses testing other than software development
testing.'' Also Section 4.4.3 states, ``Simulator performance testing
comprises operability and scenario-based testing.'' In Sec. 55.4,
``Definitions,'' the proposed rule would define performance testing as
follows: ``Performance testing means validation, scenario-based, or
operability testing conducted to verify a simulation facility's
performance as compared to actual or predicted reference plant
performance.'' The Standards Committee WG ANS-3.5 recommends that the
proposed definition be changed to read as follows: ``Performance
testing means scenario-based and operability testing conducted to
verify a simulation facility's performance as compared to actual or
predicted reference plant performance.''
Response: The Commission agrees that the proposed wording of the
definition of ``performance testing'' (i.e., ``validation, scenario-
based, or operability testing'') may have caused some confusion.
Further, the Commission has reconsidered the inclusion of the phrase ``
* * * scenario-based, or operability * * * '' because it could be
interpreted as limiting a facility licensee to the use of the ANSI/ANS-
3.5-1998 standard. Therefore, the Commission has retained the original
definition of performance testing in the final rule as ``Performance
testing means testing conducted to verify a simulation facility's
performance as compared to actual or predicted reference plant
performance.''
Comment 5-2: One commenter stated that the terms ``plant
facility,'' ``plant,'' and ``nuclear power unit'' are used
interchangeably when discussing the requirement for control
manipulations. For a multi-unit facility, the three phrases can have
distinctly different meanings and ramifications on the actual number of
manipulations that would be required. The use of ``nuclear power unit''
could be slightly different on each unit at the time of an operator
license application due to staggered outages and design upgrade
implementation schedules. The use of ``plant'' could be interpreted as
one of the units of a multi-unit facility or as a ``facility.'' A more
appropriate term would be ``reference unit.''
Response: The Commission acknowledges the commenter's observation
that the terms ``plant facility,'' ``plant,'' and ``nuclear power
unit'' were used interchangeably when discussing the requirement for
control manipulations. The Commission does not require that a plant-
referenced simulator reflect multiple unit configurations or that the
control manipulations would have to be completed on each configuration
separately. The term ``reference plant'' is defined in Sec. 55.4 as
``the specific nuclear power plant from which a simulation facility's
control room configuration, system control arrangement, and design data
are derived.'' This definition remains the same in the final rule and
continues to clarify that for a simulation facility, a specific plant
(unit) at a multi-plant (unit) site is the ``reference plant.'' The
Commission realizes that the use of inconsistent terminology can be
confusing and has made clarifications where appropriate in preparing
the final rule. However, the Commission intends to re-evaluate the use
of the term ``reference plant'' in the future.
Comment 5-3: One commenter stated that in discussing the testing
that would be required by the Commission to take credit for a
manipulation performed as a plant-reference simulator in the Statements
of Consideration, the scope of testing is described as (1) to encompass
verification, validation, and documentation and (2) developmental and
verification testing. On the other hand, the proposed wording in
Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(B) of the proposed rulemaking (65 FR 41021)
describes the specific performance testing requirements as follows:
``Simulator fidelity has been demonstrated so that
[[Page 52664]]
significant control manipulations are completed without procedural
exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from
approved training scenarios sequence.'' It is important to note that
certain words with specific definitions in ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 (i.e.,
verification and validation) are not used in the rule itself. The
commenter recommends that the Statements of Consideration use the same
language as the rule itself.
Response: The Commission acknowledges the commenter's observation
that certain words with specific definitions in ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998
(i.e., verification and validation) were not used in the proposed rule
and the recommendation that the Statements of Consideration use the
same language as the rule itself. The intent of Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(B)
of the proposed rule was not to establish specific performance testing
requirements but to ensure that the significant control manipulations
that are performed on the simulator are completed without procedural
exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the
approved training scenario sequence. It is important to remember that
while the Commission has endorsed ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, it is not
requiring facility licensees to upgrade their commitments and
requirements with respect to simulator testing. Therefore, no changes
are warranted in response to this comment.
Comment 5-4: One commenter noted that Sec. 55.45(b)(3)(i)(A) states
in part that ``the plant-referenced simulator uses models related to
nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that replicate the core
load that exists in the nuclear power unit.'' Engineering and real-time
numerical models contain approximations. Generally, neither reproduces
physical processes exactly. Therefore, guidance identifying the level
of modeling detail required and a definition for the term ``replicate''
need to be developed. The level of modeling detail required has to
coincide with actual plant's response as seen by the operators.
Paragraphs 4.1.3.1.3 and 4.1.3.1.4 of the 1998 ANSI/ANS-3.5 Standard do
not provide any assistance. Additionally, no guidance is provided on
rod worth, notch worth, SRM-IRM range performance, axial power
distribution, radial power distribution, stored energy, fuel time
constant, core coupling, etc., that are the actual plant responses that
the operator sees. Also, older, coarser mesh models are less refined
than the more recent wheel-up engineering look-alike models. Therefore,
the commenter believes that guidance as to what level of modeling
detail is acceptable to the Commission needs to be developed.
Response: When the Commission developed the proposed rule, it
purposely excluded prescriptive guidance on the level of modeling
detail for a plant-referenced simulator because the NRC staff believes
that section 4.1, ``Simulator Capabilities Criteria'' of ANSI/ANS-3.5-
1998, the latest industry consensus standard, provides adequate
guidance in that area. The NRC staff believes that the concerns
regarding paragraphs 4.1.3.1.3 and 4.1.3.1.4 of the standard and the
specific parameters identified in the comment are unrelated to the
proposed rule. Technical issues such as these should be brought to the
attention of the Standards Committee WG ANS-3.5 for resolution.
Therefore, no changes are warranted in response to this comment.
Comment 5-5: One commenter stated that clear guidance should be
provided for multi-unit sites training on one simulator. In addition,
the commenter stated that provisions have to be made that allow for
training on a simulator that may not exactly replicate the reactor core
in each reactor unit.
Response: The Commission acknowledges the commenter's concerns
regarding training at multi-unit sites and has clarified the final rule
language to indicate that the simulator core model will replicate the
reference plant for the facility. The NRC does not expect that a plant-
referenced simulator would reflect multiple unit configurations or that
the control manipulations would have to be completed on each
configuration separately. If a facility licensee wishes to use a
simulation facility to simulate more than one nuclear power plant, it
must be able to demonstrate to the NRC that the differences between the
plants are not so significant that they have an impact on the ability
of the simulation facility to meet the requirements and guidance of
ANSI/ANS-3.5. Therefore, no additional changes are warranted in
response to this comment.
Comment 5-6: One commenter noted that under the ``Discussion of
Proposed Rule Change,'' the statement is made that ``absent
certification, assurance of simulator suitability would be provided
through Commission reviews and validation of operating test scenarios,
with review of performance test results, and uncorrected modeling or
hardware discrepancies, if needed.'' Objective guidance should be
developed for Commission's review of ``uncorrected modeling or hardware
discrepancies'' because such a review could render the simulator
unsuitable for examination.
Response: As discussed in the proposed regulatory analysis attached
to SECY-00-0083, the Commission is planning to revise and develop
additional implementation guidance for use by the NRC staff in
evaluating whether a plant-referenced simulator is suitable for use in
conducting the required control manipulations and operating
examinations. This effort is expected to include revisions of the
appropriate sections of NUREG-1021, Revision 8, ``Operator Licensing
Examination Standards for Power Reactors,'' and the Licensed Operator
Requalification Inspection Procedure (IP-71111.11) of the reactor
oversight process.
Comment 5-7: One commenter notes that, as stated in SECY-00-0083,
dated April 12, 2000, the current revision of the national standard,
ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator
Training and Examination,'' employs a scenario-based testing and
quality control philosophy that is inconsistent with the testing
assumptions and requirements of the rule. With the elimination of the
certification process and NRC Form 474, the commenter did not
understand where the linkage between the proposed regulatory change,
Regulatory Guide 1.149, ``Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for
Use in Operator Training and License Examinations,'' and the ANSI/ANS-
3.5-1998 Standard is maintained.
Response: The Commission believes that the rule will facilitate the
voluntary implementation of ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 because it deletes the
prescriptive requirements for simulator test performance and scheduling
that were implemented in connection with the industry standard that was
in effect at the time of the 1987 rule change. If those requirements
had not been deleted, facility licensees would have had little
incentive to revise their programs to be compatible with the current
industry standard. As with most other NRC regulations, the linkage
between 10 CFR Part 55 and ANSI/ANS-3.5, the industry consensus
standard for nuclear power plant simulation facilities, is established
by the associated regulatory guide, in this case RG 1.149. Eliminating
NRC Form 474 does not affect that linkage.
Section-by-Section Summary of Final Amendments
Part 55--Operator's Licenses, Table of Contents
In 10 CFR part 55, ``Operators's Licenses,'' the Table of Contents
regarding subpart E-Written
[[Page 52665]]
Examinations and Operating Tests, is amended by reference to new
Sec. 55.46.
Section 55.4 Definitions
The term ``plant-referenced simulator'' is revised to remove the
provision that ``a plant-referenced simulator demonstrates expected
plant response to operator input, and to normal, transient, and
accident conditions to which the simulator has been designed to
respond'' from the definition and move it to new Sec. 55.46(c)(1).
The term ``simulation facility'' is revised to include part-task
and limited-scope simulator devices so that such devices can be used if
a request were received and approved by the Commission for their use.
The definition of ``simulation facility'' is also revised to relocate
the ``the plant'' as a potential ``simulation facility'' to new
Sec. 55.46 (b).
Section 55.8 Information Collection Requirements: OMB Approval
NRC Form 474, ``Simulation Facility Certification'' no longer needs
to be filed. Accordingly Sec. 55.8(c)(3) is deleted.
Section 55.31 How to Apply
Section 55.31(a)(5) is revised to allow that the required five
significant control manipulations that affect reactivity or power level
to be performed either on a plant-referenced simulator or on the plant
itself, at the facility licensee's discretion.
By providing an option for facility licensees to use plant-
referenced simulators for control manipulations, the final rule makes
unnecessary the need for current provisions in Sec. 55.31(a)(5)
addressing the use of simulators for performance of control
manipulations for facilities that have not yet completed pre-
operational testing and initial startup test programs and provisions
addressing plants in extended shutdowns. Thus those provisions are
removed.
Additionally, acceptable simulator training scenarios involving
control manipulations that affect reactivity are identified in
Sec. 55.31(a)(5) for clarity by reference to current control
manipulations and training scenarios described in Sec. 55.59.
Consistent with previously issued regulatory guidance, the list
provides examples of acceptable control manipulations, which are a
subset of evolutions in Sec. 55.59 (c)(3)(i), and affect reactivity in
a controlled manner and exclude those items on the list that are major
transients and accidents.
Section 55.45 Operating Tests (b) Implementation--Administration
Former Secs. 55.45(b)(4) and (5) dealing with simulators have been
separated from the requirements for operating tests in Sec. 55.45 and
consolidated in a new Sec. 55.46, ``Simulation Facilities.''
Section 55.45(b) requires that the operating test for an operators
license be administered on either a Commission-approved simulation
facility, a plant-referenced simulator, or on the actual plant, if
approved by the Commission.
Facility licensees proposing to use a plant-referenced simulator
meeting the definition in Sec. 55.4 are not required to submit a
request for Commission approval of that simulator. For cases when
facility licensees propose to use a simulation facility not meeting the
definition of a plant-referenced simulator, the Commission will
continue to require additional information to determine the
acceptability of the simulator and thus, will require an application
for Commission approval.
Section 55.46 Simulation Facilities
The final rule implements administrative changes to former
Sec. 55.45(b) to move the requirements to a new Sec. 55.46,
``Simulation Facilities.'' The new section has one general and three
implementation criteria as discussed below.
(a) General.
Section 55.46(a) explains that the purpose of this section is to
set forth the requirements for the use of a simulation facility for the
administration of the operating licensing operator test, and for the
use of a plant-referenced simulator for fulfilling a portion of the
experience requirements for applicants for operator and senior
licenses.
(b) Commission-approved simulation facilities and Commission
approval of use of the plant in the administration of the operating
test.
Section 55.46(b)(1) provides that facility licensees who propose to
use a simulation facility, other than a plant-referenced simulator, or
the plant in the administration of the operating test under
Sec. 55.45(b)(1) or Sec. 55.45(b)(3) shall request approval of the
simulation facility from the Commission and that this request must
include certain criteria as described below.
Section 55.46(b)(1)(i) provides that the request for approval of
the simulation facility, other than solely a plant-referenced
simulator, must describe the components of the simulation facility or
the plant intended to be used for each part of the operating test,
unless previously approved. Section 55.46(b)(1)(ii) provides that the
request for approval of the simulation facility, other than solely a
plant-referenced simulator, must describe the performance tests and the
results of the tests. Section 55.46(b)(1)(iii) provides that the
request for approval of the simulation facility, other than solely a
plant-referenced simulator, must describe the procedures for
maintaining examination and test integrity consistent with the
requirements of Sec. 55.49. Section 55.46(b)(2) provides that the
Commission will approve a simulation facility or use of the plant for
administration of operating tests if it finds that the simulation
facility or the plant and their proposed use are suitable for the
conduct of operating tests for the facility licensee's reference plant
under Sec. 55.45(a).
(c) Plant-referenced simulators.
Section 55.46(c) requires that a plant-referenced simulator used
for the administration of the operator licensing operator test or to
meet the experience requirements of Sec. 55.31(a)(5) to demonstrate
expected plant response to operator input and to normal, transient, and
accident conditions to which the simulator has been designed to
respond. Sections 55.46(c)(1)(i) and (ii) are revised to include the
provision that a plant-referenced simulator is designed and implemented
so that it: (1) Is sufficient in scope and fidelity to allow conduct of
the evolutions listed in Secs. 55.45(a)(1) through (13) and
Secs. 55.59(c)(3)(i)(A) through (AA), as applicable to the design of
the reference plant; and, (2) allow for the completion of control
manipulations for licensed operator applicant eligibility consistent
with Sec. 55.46(c)(2).
Section 55.46(c)(2)(i) provides that the plant-referenced simulator
utilizes models relating to nuclear and thermal-hydraulic
characteristics that replicate the most recent core load in the nuclear
power reference plant for which a license is being sought. Section
55.46(c)(2)(ii) provides that simulator fidelity has been demonstrated
so that significant control manipulations are completed without
procedural exceptions, simulator performance exceptions, or deviation
from the approved training scenario sequence. It is the Commission's
intent that the phrase ``most recent'' means the current core or if the
plant is in a refueling outage, the core just previous to the outage.
(d) Continued assurance of simulator fidelity.
Section 55.46(d) requires that facility licensees which maintain a
simulation facility shall: (1) Conduct performance testing throughout
the life of the
[[Page 52666]]
simulation facility in a manner sufficient to ensure that the criteria
of Sec. 55.46(c)(1)(ii), as applicable, and Sec. 55.46(d)(3) are met,
and retain the test results for four years after the completion of each
performance test or until superseded by updated test results; (2)
correct modeling and hardware discrepancies and discrepancies
identified from scenario validation and from performance testing; (3)
make the results of any uncorrected performance test failures that may
exist at the time of the operating test or requalification program
inspection available for NRC review, prior to or concurrent with
preparations for each operating test or requalification program
inspection; and, (4) maintain the provisions for license application,
examination, and test integrity consistent with Sec. 55.49.
Section 55.59 Requalification
As a result of the changes to Sec. 55.45(b) that eliminate the
simulator certification requirement, a conforming change to
Sec. 55.59(c)(4)(iv) deletes the terms ``certified'' when referring to
a simulation facility in this section.
Electronic Reporting
The Commission is currently in the process of implementing an
electronic document management and reporting program, known as the
Agency Wide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) that will
provide for electronic access of many types of reports. Accordingly,
there is no separate rulemaking effort to provide for electronic access
or submittal of reports.
State Input
Many States (Agreement States and Non-Agreement States) have
agreements with power reactors to inform the States of plant issues.
State reporting requirements are frequently triggered by Commission
reporting requirements. Accordingly, the Commission sought State
comment on issues related to the proposed amendment by letters to State
Liaison Officers as well as by a specific request in the proposed rule.
No comments on the proposed rule were received from any State agency.
Voluntary Consensus Standards
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Pub.
L. 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the
use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. This final rule sets forth requirements with respect to
training of operators, and removing current certification requirements
for simulators. The Commission has determined that the industry
consensus standard in this area, American National Standards Institute/
American Nuclear Society (ANSI/ANS) 3.5, ``Nuclear Power Plant
Simulators for Use in Operator Training and Examination'' is one
acceptable means for complying with specific parts of the requirements
of the final rule. Accordingly, Regulatory Guide 1.149, Revision 3,
endorses the ANSI/ANS-3.5-1998 as an acceptable method by which
facility licensees might implement specific parts of this rule.
Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact and Categorical
Exclusion
The Commission has determined under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations
in subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 that this rule falls within the
categorical exclusions of Secs. 51.22(c)(1), (2), and (3)(i) and (iii).
Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an
environmental assessment is required.
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
This final rule eliminates all the information collection
requirements for Office of Management and Budget approval number 3150-
0138. Because the rule will reduce information collection requirements,
the public burden for these information collections is expected to be
decreased by 120 hours per response. This reduction includes the time
required for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed and completing and reviewing
the information collection. Send comments on any aspect of these
information collections, including suggestions for further reducing the
burden, to the Records Management Branch (T-6E6), U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet
electronic mail at [email protected]. and to the Desk Officer, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0138), Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification
If a means used to impose an information collection does not
display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct
or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information
collection.
Regulatory Analysis
The Commission prepared a draft regulatory analysis for the
proposed rule to examine the costs and benefits of the alternatives
considered by the Commission. Public comments on this analysis were
requested in connection with the proposed rule. No significant comments
were received. Minor changes have been made to the draft regulatory
analysis to prorate the cost and benefit of the final rule over the
average remaining years of operating life of the facility. The final
regulatory analysis is available for inspection in the Commission
Public Document Room or it may be viewed and downloaded electronically
via the interactive rulemaking web site established by NRC for this
rulemaking, as discussed above under the heading ADDRESSES. Single
copies may be obtained from the contact listed above under the heading,
``For Further Information Contact.''
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear
power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within
the scope of the definition of ``small entities'' set forth in the
Regulatory Flexibility Act or the size standards established by the
Commission (10 CFR 2.810).
Backfit Analysis
The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109,
does not apply to this final rule because it does not impose new
requirements as defined in 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1). The final rule changes
constitute either permissible relaxations from current requirements or
provide an alternative regulatory approach without changing substantive
existing requirements. Therefore, a backfit analysis has not been
prepared. Facility licensees would not be required by this final rule
to change existing programs. The final rule permits the five
significant control manipulations to be conducted at either the actual
facility or a plant-referenced simulator. The final rule clarifies
criteria on simulator fidelity assurance. The final rule also
eliminates certification of simulation facilities and submittal of
quadrennial test reports and schedule information.
The final rule entails costs on the part of both the NRC and the
industry for one-time revision of existing programs. However, the
regulatory analysis suggests that industry could recover these costs
and the final rule would be an overall burden reduction.
As discussed above, the Commission has prepared a regulatory
analysis for
[[Page 52667]]
the proposed rule that examines the costs and benefits of the proposed
requirements in this rule. The Commission regards the regulatory
analysis as a disciplined process for assessing information collection
and reporting requirements to determine that the burden imposed is
justified in light of the potential safety significance of the
information to be collected.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, the Commission has determined that this action
will have no adverse impact on small businesses and has verified this
determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 55
Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear power
plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC is adopting
the following amendments to 10 CFR part 55.
PART 55--OPERATORS' LICENSES
1. The authority citation for part 55 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 107, 161, 182, 68 Stat. 939, 948, 953, as
amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201,
2232, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended,
1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).
Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59 also issued under Pub. L.
97-425, 96 Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61 also issued
under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).
2. In Sec. 55.4, Definitions, the terms Plant-referenced simulator,
and Simulation facility are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 55.4 Definitions.
* * * * *
Plant-referenced simulator means a simulator modeling the systems
of the reference plant with which the operator interfaces in the
control room, including operating consoles, and which permits use of
the reference plant's procedures.
* * * * *
Simulation facility means one or more of the following components,
alone or in combination: used for either the partial conduct of
operating tests for operators, senior operators, and license
applicants, or to establish on-the-job training and experience
prerequisites for operator license eligibility:
(1) A plant-referenced simulator;
(2) A Commission-approved simulator under Sec. 55.46(b); or
(3) Another simulation device, including part-task and limited
scope simulation devices, approved under Sec. 55.46(b).
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 55.8, paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) are removed and (b) is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 55.8 Information collection requirements: OMB approval.
* * * * *
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in
this part appear in Secs. 55.11, 55.25, 55.27, 55.31, 55.40, 55.41,
55.43, 55.45, 55.46. 55.47, 55.53, 55.57, and 55.59.
4. In Sec. 55.31, paragraph(a)(5) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 55.31 How to apply.
(a) * * *
(5) Provide evidence that the applicant, as a trainee, has
successfully manipulated the controls of either the facility for which
a license is sought or a plant-referenced simulator that meets the
requirements of Sec. 55.46(c). At a minimum, five significant control
manipulations must be performed that affect reactivity or power level.
Control manipulations performed on the plant-referenced simulator may
be chosen from a representative sampling of the control manipulations
and plant evolutions described in Sec. 55.59(c)(3)(i)(A-F), (R), (T),
(W), and (X) of this part, as applicable to the design of the plant for
which the license application is submitted. For licensed operators
applying for a senior operator license, certification that the operator
has successfully operated the controls of the facility as a licensed
operator shall be accepted; and
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 55.45, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows.
Sec. 55.45 Operating tests.
* * * * *
(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).
6. Section 55.46 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 55.46 Simulation facilities.
(a) General. This section addresses the use of a simulation
facility for the administration of the operating test and plant-
referenced simulators to meet experience requirements for applicants
for operator and senior operator licenses.
(b) Commission-approved simulation facilities and Commission
approval of use of the plant in the administration of the operating
test.
(1) Facility licensees that propose to use a simulation facility,
other than a plant-referenced simulator, or the plant in the
administration of the operating test under Secs. 55.45(b)(1) or
55.45(b)(3), shall request approval from the Commission. This request
must include:
(i) A description of the components of the simulation facility
intended to be used, or the way the plant would be used for each part
of the operating test, unless previously approved; and
(ii) A description of the performance tests for the simulation
facility as part of the request, and the results of these tests; and
(iii) A description of the procedures for maintaining examination
and test integrity consistent with the requirements of Sec. 55.49.
(2) The Commission will approve a simulation facility or use of the
plant for administration of operating tests if it finds that the
simulation facility and its proposed use, or the proposed use of the
plant, are suitable for the conduct of operating tests for the facility
licensee's reference plant under Sec. 55.45(a).
(c) Plant-referenced simulators.
(1) A plant-referenced simulator used for the administration of the
operating test or to meet experience requirements in Sec. 55.31(a)(5)
must demonstrate expected plant response to operator input and to
normal, transient, and accident conditions to which the simulator has
been designed to respond. The plant-referenced simulator must be
designed and implemented so that it:
(i) Is sufficient in scope and fidelity to allow conduct of the
evolutions listed in Secs. 55.45(a)(1) through (13), and
55.59(c)(3)(i)(A) through (AA), as applicable to the design of the
reference plant.
(ii) Allows for the completion of control manipulations for
operator license applicants.
(2) Facility licensees that propose to use a plant-referenced
simulator to meet
[[Page 52668]]
the control manipulation requirements in Sec. 55.31(a)(5) must ensure
that:
(i) The plant-referenced simulator utilizes models relating to
nuclear and thermal-hydraulic characteristics that replicate the most
recent core load in the nuclear power reference plant for which a
license is being sought; and
(ii) Simulator fidelity has been demonstrated so that significant
control manipulations are completed without procedural exceptions,
simulator performance exceptions, or deviation from the approved
training scenario sequence.
(3) A simulation facility consisting solely of a plant-referenced
simulator must meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this
section and the criteria in paragraphs (d)(1) and (4) of this section
for the Commission to accept the plant-referenced simulator for
conducting operating tests as described in Sec. 55.45(a) of this part,
requalification training as described in Sec. 55.59(c)(3) of this part,
or for performing control manipulations that affect reactivity to
establish eligibility for an operator's license as described in
Sec. 55.31(a)(5).
(d) Continued assurance of simulator fidelity. Facility licensees
that maintain a simulation facility shall:
(1) Conduct performance testing throughout the life of the
simulation facility in a manner sufficient to ensure that paragraphs
(c)(2)(ii), as applicable, and (d)(3) of this section are met. The
results of performance tests must be retained for four years after the
completion of each performance test or until superseded by updated test
results;
(2) Correct modeling and hardware discrepancies and discrepancies
identified from scenario validation and from performance testing;
(3) Make results of any uncorrected performance test failures that
may exist at the time of the operating test or requalification program
inspection available for NRC review, prior to or concurrent with
preparations for each operating test or requalification program
inspection; and
(4) Maintain the provisions for license application, examination,
and test integrity consistent with Sec. 55.49.
7. In Sec. 55.59, paragraph (c)(4)(iv) is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 55.59 Requalification.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) Simulation of emergency or abnormal conditions that may be
accomplished by using the control panel of the facility involved or by
using a simulator. When the control panel of the facility is used for
simulation, the actions taken or to be taken for the emergency or
abnormal condition shall be discussed; actual manipulation of the plant
controls is not required. If a simulator is used in meeting the
requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(iii) of this section, it must
accurately reproduce the operating characteristics of the facility
involved and the arrangement of the instrumentation and controls of the
simulator must closely parallel that of the facility involved. After
the provisions of Sec. 55.46 have been implemented at a facility, the
Commission approved or plant-referenced simulator must be used to
comply with this paragraph.
* * * * *
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of October, 2001.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
J. Samuel Walker,
Acting Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-26108 Filed 10-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P