ML19207A142

License Examination Results Update,1975-1978

ML19207A142
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/31/1978
From:	Holman J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
FOIA-79-98 NUDOCS 7905300289
Download: ML19207A142 (27)

Text

.

r U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMI'2S.0N LICENSE EXAMINATION RESULTS U DA T, T

1975 - 1978 J. J. Holman INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND In the two previous Symposia on Training of Nuclear Facility Personnel,

.we presented papers discussing the results of examinations admin-istered at Nuclear Power Plants during the periods of 1960 - 1970 and 1971 - 1974.

Descriptions were included of the requirements for the issuance of licenses to operators and senior operators and the the types of examinations administered, as well as the examination results.

L At the first Symposium in 1971, the data developed from a review of over 1200 power reactor examinations administered between 1960 and 1970 were presented.

Analysis of the results was. based on type of 1.icense examination administered, examination category, age of applicant, training received, education, and previous nuclear ex-perience.

At the 1975 Symposium, we discussed the results of the over 1000 power reactor examinations given in the period 1971 through 1974 We did not lock at age, experiecce, education or training but did present percentages of pass versus fail, reasons for &nial and average 803236 7905aog g

category grades.

In this paper, the results of examinations administered in the period 1975 through 1978 are presented. The information is from 1789 power reactor examinations and is presented again on a percentage of pass versus fail and the reasons for denial.

In addition, a comparison is made with the data f. rom the previous periods.

The rescits of a survey recently completed by the Operator Licensing Branch is also presented.

The q.estion asked was, "For what various reasons do licensed individuals not renew their licenses?" The period covered was July 1,1975 to September 30, 1978, and included 529 reactor onerators and 351 senior reactor operators who let their licenses expire.

Finally, this paper addresses the role of licensed operators in personnel errors committed at nuclear powe: plants and discusses the impact, or lack of it, the operator requalification programs have had on the error rates.

LICENSE APPLICATIONS AND EXAMINATIONS Each applicant for an operator or senior operator license submits to the Commission a signed application containing the information required by 10 CFR Part 55, Operators' Licenses.

In addition, an authorized representative of the facility licensee a

ne facility where the 80!;257

applicant seeks a license must certify that the applicant has a need for the license, that he has successfully completed a training program (s'upplying the details of such) and that he has learned to operate the controls of the reactor in a safe and competent manner. A report of I

medical examination of the zpplicant on a NRC form must also be submitted, i

f 10 CFR Part 55.11 states that "an application for a license pursuant to the regulations in this part will be approved if the Commission finds th at ":

among other things, "the applicant has passed a written examina-l tion and operating test as may be prescribed by the Commission to deter-8 mine that he has learned to operate and, in the case of a senior operator, to operate and to direct the licensed activities of li. censed operators in a competent and safe manner."

P

}

The written examination for reactor operator consists of seven categories i

and generally requires six to eight hours to complete. Comprised mostly

[:

of essay type questions with perhaps several sketches and calculations required, the seven categories on the operator examination are:

Principles of Reactor Operation f

a.

i l

b.

Features of Facility Design c.

General Operating Characteristics

- d.

Instrumentation and Controls e.

Safety and Emergency Systems f.

Standard and Emergency Operating Procec'ures g.

Radiation Control and Safety bCD53SS

,=

The written examination administered for senior reactor operator consists of the same seven categories administered to the reactor operator plus an h

additional five categorics. Approximately four to six hours are required

..f to complete the five senior categories, which are:

h.

Reactor Theory

}

i.

Radioactive Materials Handling, Dispcsal and Hazards

{

j. Specific Operating. Characteristics f

k.

Juel Handling and Core Parameters 1.

Administrative Procedures, Controls and Limitations Y

ll H

Following the written examinations, the applicants are administered an l '_'

I; operating (oral) examiration.

The operating tests administered to appli-by cants for both types of licenses are generally similar in scope.

What Ir i-sets the two apart, primarily, is that the senior operator candidate

=

h is questioned much more closely on knowledge of administrative controls 5

j[

and technical specifications and their bases.

The senior operator is il

!E also expected to display a greater knowledge of reactor theory and core

{

j{

'characteristics.

i it i

A typical operatinc examination for a reactcr operator or senior reactor

. r-operator license lasts approximately 4-6 hours. The examination includes i

I a discussion period, a tour of the plant and in-depth questioning of thi i

IF applicat's knowledge of the controls and instrumentation in the control i

room.

The scope of the operating examination is the same for both opera-tor and senior operator acclicants, except that the senior operatcr is expected to answer questions as though he were the operator's supervisor.

80!!233

l Three types of applications are received:

r.,

1.

An application for an operator license. These applicants are normal-n

!]

ly ad inistered a written examination and operating test.

t

l-2.

An application for a senior operator license from an individual who l:

presently holds an operator license at the facility.

These applicants o

l5 riormally are administered only the five part senior written examina-tion.

g 3

1 3.

An application for a senior operator license f rom an individual who k;

does not hold an operator license at the facility. Normally, these 3

1 individuals are administered the seven oart operator and five part senior operator writtan examination and the operating test.

I EXAMINATION RESULTS di

),

The following discussion presents the results of examinations administered at nuclear power plants to 852 operator. applicants and 937 senior operator ij i

applicants.

M.

Tables 1 through 3 contain the examination results and reflect the aver-age performance of all applicants during the period 1975 throuch 1978.

In the cases where denials were issued, the reasons for the deniais are i

.I gi ve n.

803300

The examination results indicate that of the 852 operator license appli-cants, 754 (88.5%) were issued licenses and 98 (11.5%) were denied.

Of the 98 operator license applicants who were denied, 43 (43.9%) failed both j

the written and the oral portions of the examination.

Eighteen (18.4%)

failed the written portion only and 37 (37.7%) failed the oral portion only Although not tabulated for this paper, average grades on the written exam-inations followed the same trend noted in the two previous surveys.

For those who received a license, the average grade was approxiratey 80%.

For those who failed the written examination, the average grade was ap-proximately 63%.

Of the 377 senior operator applicants who previously held reactor operator

~

licenses, Table 2 shows that 340 (90.2%) received licenses and 37 (9.8%)

were aenied. Most upgrade senicr oper + ors are administered only the senior written examination. Hence, of those denied, 31 (83.8%) failed written only.

Four (10.8%) failed both writtea and oral and 2 (5.4%)

feiled tha oral portion only. As is the case wit', operators, the average grade of those who were licensed was approximately 80%.

-There were 560 applications for senior operator from individuals not pre 5 viously licensed.

Table ; shows that a97 (58.8%) were licensed and 63 (11.2%) were denied.

Of the 63 who were deniec, 22 (3a.9%) failed both the written anc oral examinations.

Ten (15.95) f ailed the written exam-ination only and 31 (49.2%) failed tne crai cor-ion only.

8083G1.

It should be noted that 53 (84.1%) of these 63 applicants who were denied I

I failed the oral portion of the examination. One reason is that many are staff engineers who are given inadequate tire in the plant and control L

i room during the their

~~4 ning period.

8 I

A It should also be noted that many senior applicants who are denied, meet the qualifications and are issued a license for reactor operator.

i.

i I

COMP ARIS0N WITH PREVIOUS SURVEYS 4

i l}

Comparing the results of the most recent examinations with the results 4

f rom tae two previous surveys presents an encouraging picture.

It appears j

that even as the plants have grown in size and the controls and instru-J

?

mentation have becore more ccmplex, the training programs have kept pace.

j Table 4 presents historical data on operator applicarts for the three per-iods of interest.

ire success rate has grown from 83.4% for the 1960 -

j 1

(

1970 period to 88.5% for the 1975 - 1978 period.

Table 5 shovs. the reasons for denials by percent.

It indicates an upward trend in the number of denials based on the oral examination only.

p Table 6 gives the data for senicr operator applicants who held an oper-ator's license at the time of application.

Again, the trend indicated is j

encou ra gi n g.

No comoarison data is presentec on denial categories be-cause they were not kept for One previcus cericcs.

809302

Table 7 presents the data for senior operatcr applicants who were not previously licensed.

A 10% increase in overall success rate took place between 2970 and 1978, evidence cf the improvements that have occurred in training programs and techniques.

Table 8, however, shows a disturbing shift in the reasons for failure.

From 32.4% in the 1960 - 1970 period, the latest period shows almost half (49.2%) of those denied are passing the written examination b.ut failing the oral. Overall, 84.1% of the denials are based solely or in part on the oral examinations.

The NRC has made a conscienticus effort over the years to make the examinations more practical.

It appears that in this aspec't, the training programs are not keeping up.

~.

REASONS THAT LICENSES ARE ALLOWED TO EXPIRE We, in the Operator Licensing Branch, have been very aware of the in-creased rate at which annlications have been received over the past few years.

One would think that this would result in greatly increasing nut 'rs of active licenses; yet, such is not the case. We keep records of the total number of licenses in effect on a monthly basis and recog-ni:e that the growth in that number is not keeping pace with the growth in applications.

Consecuently, we asked ourselves the following c.uestions:

1.

Hcw many licenses expire in a given time peried?

8033G3

=

L For what reason are the licenses allcwed to expire?

We cho 9 July 1,1975 to September 30, 1978 as the period of interest and folic 'ed up on 529 reactor operators and 351 senior reactor opera-i tors who a'iowed their licenses to expire within that time frame.

Tables t

i 9 and 10 present the results of the survey.

Table 9 (learly shows that the majority of the reactor operators who let i

their licenses expire do so because they have upcraded to senior operator.

That was expected.

One cut cf five of the operators remain with the utililty in some capac-ity.

In a utility with more than one nuclear plant, it is quite common t

for an operator from one station to become a senior operator at another station in the system, in which case his first license expires.

In addi-tion, it is not uncommon to find ex-operators in the chemistry, health I

[

physics and instrurentation and control groups on3ite.

I The fact that just over 10% leave the utility, for jobs with other util-

~ities, vendors or consulting firms, seems to indicate that this is not as great a problem, at least at the operator level, as was expected.

The number of operators who leave the industry completely does not seem ext rao rdi na ry.

However, we have no base line data to tell us >5 ether this numoer is increasing, as has been suggested, as c result of the imocsition of requalification programs, security programs or cther S(35}300:

additional administrative requirements. We expect to keep data in the future to determine if trends are developing.

i l

The picture changes significantly when looking at the senior coerators whose licenses expire. Table 10 shows us that one out of two licensed senior operators will move to some other capacity with tne utility.

The survey indicated that for the majority, three routes are taken. Many are moved to a staff position not requiring a license.

Others are trans-ferred to the home office of the utility.

For a utility with more than

~

one nuclear station, most are transferred to the new plants.

Few return to non-nuclear facilities.

Although the services of these highly trained individuals are not lost to the utility, it does represent a challenge to keep the original station y

staffed with qualified senior operators.

Of even more significance than the foregoing is the fact that for each individual staying with the utility, one senior operator is leaving for some other opportunity in the industry.

By far, the majority of those move to other utilities where the opportunity fcr advancement is perceived to be greater or they move because of geographic desirability. The

('

vendors and consulting firms take their share. More than a few flRC empley-i i

ees are ex-senior operators.

i If there is any importance to be placed on tnis, it is that the utilities must recognize that a great many of the pec:le they are training, they are SOS 3G3

'u do3ng so'for someone else.

Hence, future manpower projections need to f;!

take this into account in order to prevent being undermanned at the senior i

j operator level.

LICENSED PERSONNEL ERROR In June of 1974, six months after the imposition of the requirements for j

operator requalification programs, we presented a paper at the annual ANS meeting which dircussed those progra.gs.

In it we said, among other things, "We anticipate that through the implementation of operator requalification programs, we will, over the next few years, see a significant decrease both in the incidence and severity of abnormal c;currences associated with operator error."

Ii In order to determine if our expectations were being met, we began that f

2 f

June to keep track of the number of Licensee Event Reports which assigned

}

personnel error as the cause.

As best we could determine those involved 2

f personnel who were licensed, we fully anticipated seeing a continued e

[

downward trend in their error rate.

Alas, such has not been the case.

k

q. -.

There did, over the first several years, appear to be a slight improve __

ment in licensed personnel error rates.

Averaged over each year from 1974, the percent of all event reports attributed to licensed operator error declined from 6.5% to 5.155.

However, recen'..y the trend seems to nave reversed itself.

3Oh3C si

~:

Figure 1, Percent of Licensee Event Reports, shows a bar graph of the last six months of 1977 and the first elever, months of 1978.

The appar-ent reversal in trend early in 1978 is disturbing.

4 One explanation may be that around the end of 1977, beginning of 1978 i

new reporting requirements went into effect requiring more specific identification of the cause of the event.

In the case of personnel errors, subcodes were required to identify licensed operator versus non-licensed personnel errors.

Prior to that we had to guess whether licensed persons were involved.

It cculd be that we underestimated their involvement.

Now that t'te utility identifies the individuals involved, we may be getting

{

a truer picture.

E j

Nonetheless, the Licensee Event Reports cannot be held up as evidence 4

that the requalification programs have been effective.

]

b j

Since most of the errors assigned to licensed personnel involve violations of. administrative and rrocedural controls, it may be that requalification program emphasis may have to be shifted.

We will continue to monitor this in the future. We would welcome any comments or: suggestions from the in-l dustry about ways to improve the requalification programs along these lines.

The overall rate of personnel error is too high.

There is no justifica-tion for complacency when almost one out of five reported events is caused by human error. We believe increased emphasis should be olaced on the training and qualifications of non-licer. sed personnel in an attempt to 80D.3C7

L T

L t

to reduce the'overall error rate.

We trust you have corresponding beliefs and will work with us to achieve those ends.

f e

e t

i

~

i I

r

}

l N

t h

s

.-s

~

\\

e 4

6 A,

i

=

LIST OF TABLES OPERATCR APPLICANTS 1.

NRC EXAMINATION RESULTS SENIOR OPERATOR APPLICANTS 2.

NRC EXR41 NATION RESULTS PREVIOUSLY LICENSED GPERATORS 3.

NRC EXAMINATION RESULTS SENIOR OPERATOR APPLICANTS INITIAL APPLICATIONS 4.

NRC EXAMINATION RESULTS CPERATCR APPLICANTS COMPARISCN DATA 5.

NRC EXAMINATION RESULTS OPERATCA Ai (ICANTS COM?r.RISON DATA DENI ALS BY PERCENT 6.

NRC EXAMINATION RESULTS SENIOR OPERATOR APPLICANTS j

i

,>REVIOUSLY LICENSED OPERATORS COMPARISON DATA j

1 i

7.

NRC EXAMINATION RESULTS SENIOR OPERATOR APPLICANTS

}

i INITI AL APPLICATIONS COMPARISON DATA SENIOR OPERATOR APPLICANTS

}

8.

NRC EXAMINATION RESULTS INITI AL APPLICATIONS COMPARISON DATA

~

DENI;LS BY PERCENT REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSES WHICH EXPIRED JULY 1, 9.

SURVEY DATA F

1975 SEPTEMBER 30, 1973 10.

SURVEY DATA SENIOR REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSES WHICH EXPIRED JULY 1, 197E -

SE37 EMBER 30, 1973 bGir.'K 3

=

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 - PERCENT OF LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS 1

5 9

4 9

i l

I s

'e

=

I 809:110

TABLE 1 f4RC DAilf4ATION ESULTS P0hER REACTOR OPERATOR APPLICATITS 1975-1978 (UFf_R APLICANTS 852 17)

LICBiSED 754 88.5 J

EG1IED 98 11.5 3,

1' DBilALS u

IU*ER E

ir r:

l TOTAL 98 100 (j

FAllfD WRITTEi ATID I

OPAL 43 43.9 l

FAILEDWRITTB1ONLY 18 18.4

,=

FAILED OPAL ONLY 37 37,7 80!!311

=

TABLE 2 NRC EXAMItMTION RESULTS POER REACTOR SENIOR OPERATOR APPLICAMS l

PF2/IOUSLY LICENSED OPEPATORS AT TE FACILITY 1975-1978 me NLI3ER A PLICAMS 377 100 LICENSED 3u0 90.2

~

DENIED 37 9.8 1

J lt DENIALS 5

IUTER i

TOTAL 37 100

=

FAIED WRITTEN At0 i

OPAL 4

10.8 FAILED WRITTEh ONLY 31 83.8

-u FAILED OPAL ONLY 2

5.4 805.3 G

r TABLE 3 NRC EXAMIfMTION ESULTS POWER PEACTOR SENIOR OPEPATOR APPLIC4fiS l

Ii11TIAL APPLICATI0il 1975 - 1978 NIHER APPLICAhTS 560 100

[

LICENSED 497 88.8 1

l DENIED 63 11.2 t

=

DENIALS E

~

NUMBER t

TOTAL 63 100 I

FAILED WRITTB1 AND OPAL 22 34.9 FAllfD WRITTB1 ONLY 10 15.9 FAILED OPAL OILY 31 49.2 6003:3

=

TABLE 4 NRC DWilNATION P91TS OEPATOR ADPLICANIS 0:0 PARIS 0N IMTA NLPEER l

1960-1970 1971-1974 1975-1978 ADPLICAWS 668 438 852 i

LIENSED 557 371 754 ENIED 111 67 98 I

F APPLICANTS 100 100 3D0 LIENSED 83.4 84.8 88.5 I

IENIED 16.6 15.2 11.5 4".

e 809314

=

.?

TABLE 5

~"

(1RC FJAMINATIU1 ESULTS OTPATOR APPLICRiTS C0FPARISON DATA DBilALS BY ER031T 1950-1970 1971-1974 1975-1978 FAILED WRITIE1 NID ORAL 26.1 50.8 43.9 FAILED WRITIBi WLY 46.9 16.3 18.4 i

FAILED ORAL QiLY 27.0 32.0 37.7

~ _,.

bb.'le3 ? fy

=

TABLE 6 NRC EX#11NATIG1 ESULTS SB110R OEPATOR APPLICRffS PEVIOUSLY LIENSED OEPAT0FS COMPARISG1 DATA NUMBER 1960-1970 1971-1974 1975-1978 APPLICAUS 196 154

$//

L!CBSED 17'4 130 IElIED 22 24 37 l

EPGff APPLIC#'TS 100 100 100 LICENSED 88.8 8'.3 90.2 4

IEilED 11.2 15.7 9.8 4 hh

=

e--

0 TABLE 7 f1RC DMItMTIG1 ESULTS SB110R DEPATOR AFPLICANTS INITIALAPPLICANTS C0FPARISGI DATA l

NLrEER I

1950-1970 1971-1974 1975-1978 I

I APPLICANTS 337 429 560 4

m' LIG3ED 266 343 497 E

t DENIED 71 86 63 th i.

ERENT APPLICRfTS 100 100 100 1

LICBED 78.9 80.1 88.8

~

IHIED 21.1 19.9 11.2 a

f

=

TABLE 8 NRC EXATNATION RESULTS SENIOR OPERATDR APPLICNRS INITIAL APPLICATION COMPARISONDATA DBlIALS BY PERCBIT 1960-1970 1971-1974 1975-1978 FAILED WRITTEN #4D ORAL 30.0 46.5 34.9 FAILEDWRITIBlDNLY 29.6 22.1 15.9

.]

FAILED CPAL ONLY 32.4 31.4 49.2 io e g O

m M ':

805318

=

'4' TAELE 9 PEACTOR OPEPATOR LICEGES WHICH D? IRED

.lULY L 1975 - SEFTESER 30,1978 i

tg.gcR

1. TOTAL 529 100

2. STILL WITH UTILITY (NOF ICBEED CAPACITY OR AT 114 21.6

1. 0THER NUCLEAR FACILITY) i i

3.

LtM UTILITY (STIll IN INDUSTRY) 57 10.8 4.

i H INDUSTRY 24 4.5

2..

r Ti:

5. DEEGED 4

0.7 E

v.

l 6.

RETIPED 2

0.3 f

7.

UPGPADED TO SSil0R OPERATOR

?28 62.0

-=

80S3;3

=

l l

TABLE 10 i

SENIOR OPERATOR LICENSES milch EXPIRED JULY L 1975 - SEPTBIER 30,1975 i

IUTER 4

1.

TOTAL 351 100 2.

STILL lilTH lffILITY Gl0N-LICENSED CAPACITY OR AT 165 47.0 ANOTER NUCLEAR FACILITY) i

',i 3.

LEFT LTTILITY GTILL IN INDUSTRY) 155 44.2 4.

[FTINDUSTRY 18 5.1

?

r i

5.

DECEASED 3

0.8 5

l if i

6.

RETIPED 10 2.8 E'

I a

f I

i i

f'

-n

=

P 4

8033'30

I TABLE 11 UNAVAILABILITY PATE OF LICEGED IIGIVID'JALS BYYEARS EQ 2

a E

% LICSEES EXPIRIfE 63.5%

20.5%

9.8%

3.8%

CTULATIVE 63.5%

8I4.0%

93.8%

97.6%

AVERAGE 3.26 YEAPS OR 39 FLNr7};,3

=

=

z g

5, g

%LICEllSESEXPIRING 52.5%

25.5%

9.3%

7.0%

2" C&ULATIVE 52.5%

78.0%

87.3%

9'4.3%

AVEPAGE 3.88 YEARS OR f46.6 IGmiS e

auqueg",.

809.121.

30 TOTAL PERSONNEL ERROR

' LICENSED PERSONNEL ERROR 25 B]g 1

d

~

ab_

1 Q l 1h ni 1-D

[b;

$ 20 O

--y

_,L LI 1 18'3 18'7 5

18.3 18.3 EU 17.6 17,4 17.0 17.5 17.4 7'

J I

17.016.o, w

2 1

2 15.5 15.8 15.f I o

15 w

E Cw a

12.0 12.1 y

2w O

f C

i f, 10 I

8.,

g 8.2 un nr.w@

=

7.0 7.0 6.9 3.8 7.0 te 6.5 eqd m v.u 6.4 6.3 g

5.6 < %,F2"my,,-g m

6.1 b

we

@Y Nr2 7-Q:u-5.5 m

.4%

sl: w !.y yw h.xy.5-h,..a ;w~J.y~ ~7,..Q3-?,r' ". z. v. f. W,; stir.; n.9p^ ?M *rs =.nq

.e. nr %g i

..fi' g% wwa f..?~,a.U'..J y.s..sc, v~.n= ~:.w;= 4,k-l..N%. n%.x.y?M. W,:

Q.

ii, wa m

v. _

- c.,^, a.s.

. W-

-- a s

..--L 4':n-0

?

' - q.

J A

S O

N D

J F

M A M

J J

A S

O N

1977 1978 1

i FIGURE 1. PERCENT OF LICENSEE EVENT REPORTS

.k v 1] u t

,%d %

0