[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 http://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