ML20044D867

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re Reactor Operator & Senior Reactor Operator Licensing Training & Requalification Program.Estimated Respondent Burden Is 1,880 H

ML20044D867
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/28/1993
From:	Crawford G NRC OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS (OIP)
To:
References
OMB-3150-0101, OMB-3150-101, NUDOCS 9305210044
Download: ML20044D867 (31)

Text

%\\U T*

U s*w 83 Request for OMB Reviea"%

yh Q

• me.1,emm,e ;ws CW'"'

~ d" ~ ~

Important Read instructions ocfore comp +tmE form. Do not use the same SF 83 Send thtee copes of this form, the material to be renewec. and for to request botn an becstwe Decer 12291 review arc aporovat under pacerwork-three copies of the supporting statement.to:

the Paperwor> Recuction Act Answer all cuesto"s m Part t ?! tn:s request s f o' rev'ew under EO.

Office of information and Regulatory Af f acs 12291, complete Pac !! anc syn the repiatory ceti: cation. If this Office of fAanagement anc Bucget recuest is for approvai unce' the Paperwork T<ecuttien Act and 5 CFR Mtention: Docket Library. Room 3201 1320. sep Pvt R complete Part m and sign tne pape* work certacates n ashington. DC 20503 PART i.-C plete Inis Nrt f or An Requesa.

2. Depriment., ency anc s.m u 2* tee onenatq reccest l 2. Agency cooe U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 3

1 5 0

3. Name et person ws can teit ans a er caestions rega cirr ?*.s recuest ie.epnone number Rajender Auluck

( 301 > 492-3794

4. Titie ofinformater coreme ca ruemang i

Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Licensing Training and Requalification Programs

s. terat awnv war >n'a ex e rwe-t a w rxe tca vmrenxer ccce P.m ies a becumc oweo 42 2201(o)

, se_

. or u

6. At'etted pubac i c tece a mr nN

! U F ederai agenoes er empioyees I u inewooats or nousencias 3 J Farms 0 !,; f4o~ prof t institutions 4 TL bonesses or othe icr ret t 7 C SmaH tusinesses or organ.:ations 2 C State or locai rove'r e '

PART li.-Complete This Part Only if the Request is f or OMB Review Unoer Executive Order 12291

7. kegstation Icent+er N poer MNi

?&e as5'fnE d b

~

is.1 pe o+ subm<ssa,, o me e ca c.negxs Type et renew requestre Classthcstion S tore ct oeveicoment 3 0 stanca7e n

! _ f/a or 2

Prorcstd ora *t 2 u Fencing

! Z fe ma4

~_

• u or ee o+ u utt;-*? crea s 3 L_i Eme'rency e-,

.;,__. Fu or ner nne wino / pna* pro: css 4 O Statatory or weat.a! ceacone i

i

9. CF h sertion at ectec CfP

10. Does t'ns rer#at o, w ta n ep.vt r g ce reco cweem reamer tw re::u e Cf/B nrocai uncerine Pacerwork Recaction Act anc 5 CFR 1220' u vts

.,_j f.c 7-,

r-

11. It a maior ruie. n tne'e a 'eraro*y maart anaos atx"e9 I LJ Yes 2 L2 fic 3 U Ves 4U' if tof dd Of/B mawe r-e aw.w Certification for Regulatory Submissions in s2mitting th s ttosest f ar G!/B 'coen, the eutnor.7N 'eg.Jatc 6 co* !act and tne omgram o'$cial certny inat 19 reasirements o* E O 12291 and a9 appucab:t i

PD!sCy d:'echei r.be t#e9 ( o%Dwe 3 W:'"

s.gnate e r r c. m em c a joate i

i 5:gnatveeo'aut-

< ear-rs e rar

} Date I

12. t OMd use onry >

b r

s.naro oren o % n :

ii 1 g *.

., \\s, ;Ls LJ J b.

e.~. 2 en s em..

h v. ~ w. Glli tur; 3 4 :i u x -

L.

9305210044 930428

/a /grs:;3 p m ! c ;;s PDR ORG EUSOMB

(

yU Q\\\\

PDR U

L 4

%PT Ul.-Complete This Part Only if the Requestisior Apptotral of a Collection of Infor"tatiott Under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR 1320.

13. Abeact-cescr be.eessasesanc a"ected pubhe m 50worcs oriess " Nuclear Power Plant Safety Atomic Reactors" The proposed changes to 10 CFR 55 covered under this clearance will delete the requirement to submit material for preparation of NRC administered exams under 55.57(b)(2) but require certain data under existing 55.59(a)(iii).

In addition, under 55.59(c) licensees must^ submit-copies of exams to be administered.

l

14. Type of information ccuettion(chece only one) information collectior's r:ot contained on rules 1 C Regular sam ssion 2 C Eme gency submission (cert:6carnon attachec)

{

information coDections contained in rules 3 U Existrng regaiation (nc chang proposec) 6 Final or mterim 4.nal withcut pnor NPRM

7. En+er cate of expected or actual Federal 4 [ Notice cf proposec rWemaking (NPRV)

A U Regu:ar sut;rnssion Register pubhcation at

• hts stage of rulemaking 5 C Fmat NFPM was p evious!y pubirsheo B C Emergency s smssion(cert hcation arrached)

('nonth. C31. re8r)

5. T,pe of rev es reveste0 (chece on!> cne) 1 U hew couec+4on 4 C Reinstatement of a previousty approved conectice.to r.%ch approval

[

""***E"*U 2 L kewsion of a cu ent'y approved conection rr 3 C Lxtensior, of the enoiratton cate of a cunenty approved conecten 5 O E.nstinE conection en use without an oVB tontrol number ethoJt ariy charTe m tne substant e or m tne memne or conectzon M. Acencv repyt f orm namoe1s)(mcwce sta cro cpt.ons' 'orm nomoen s 9

22. Purpose ct m'ormation cohection (check as many as apply) 4 I

1 LJ 4pocation tor benefits oN 2 C Program e.Muation 3 U Genera! purpose statrstics

7. Annset reparta g or esc

osure barden 108 J

, g a g o,,,,co,.,,,,

1 Nrr per ci responcer's 2 Nmber of responses per rnponceat 1.51 3 0 prog am vanmng or managerne,1 162 6 C Fesearch 3 Total annuai respones (one 1 tenes hr'c 3 4 Hoes per respcnse l1.6 7 C Aadit 5 Tetal hours (L e 3 fees me 4) 1,880

18. Annuat recorckeeomg durcea

23. Frecuency of recorcheeping or reporting (checA all that apply)

Namter of recoroneepe*s 1 C Recordkeep.ng 2 Annual hours per reco cke

per Reporting i

I 2 C Onoccasion 3 Totat recc*ckeepmg nours (hne 1 t'mes bne 2) 4 Recorc&.ecotrg retert.on oeriod i

years l 3 [ weggy

19. Total annuai barcer' 4 C Morthiy 1NO 5 C QJa'ter'y 1 Reosestec chne 175 plus hne 18 3).

2 m currem cue eventor, 1,880 6 g sem,.annuany I

O I

7 U Annvany 3 D:t*erence (nr'e 1 tess kne 2)

Exp!anation of difference 8 0 B,enniaoy 4 Program char.ge 9 0 other(descree) 5 Adastme".t I

20. Current (most recent) OMS contro! number or comment number

24. Responcents' obbgation to corrpty (ches tt e strongest ochgation thatapphes) 3150_0101 1 O votantary 2 L Reavested expaet on cate 2 U Recured to obtain or retain a benefrt 10/31/95 3 [i vancato9

25. Are the respondents crimanty edscatio".al agencies or mst tutions o* ss t*.e pnmary purpose of the conection related to Federal edacation programs? O ves 8 No

16. Does the agency use samphng to se+ect responcents or cocs tre age-cy ecommenc or prestroe the use ci samphng or statistical anaWs Dy responce ris?

Yes Zj No

27. Regulatory aJtnor:ty for the mformation conection 10 cra 55

. or ra

or.other (spec,f ).

f Paperwork Certification

'n sutmitmg tms reosen 40r CtAB app'cval t$e agency Mad the senior c*$ cia! of an author: red representattve ce tif tes that the requirements of 5 CFR 1320 the Dr'vacy Act. stat".t:ca s'anca'cs or d: rect ves and ar y ee' asphcaD e i-+ctmaton poi.cy dvectives have tieen compt.ed with bigr,ature of p'ogasm c*t.t:ai Date

/It i

'ar e of apen 3ea the or ottic.a! or an sutbor: rec representatwe Date

[ Wld C %. ^ rri MO( 4r infn, atinn Dogmfrroc Man 3Oomont

/93 1

=

o V

4 GPo a 1984 o - 453-776

L 4

I SUPPORTING STATEMENT i

FOR

}

10 CFR PART 55, OPERATORS' LICENSES, PROPOSED RULE (OMB Clearance No. 3150-0018 and 3150-0101)

D'ESCRIPTION OF INFORMATION COLLECTION l

~~

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to delete the requirement at 55.57(b)(2)(iv) that each licensed operator pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a i

prerequisite for license renewal. The proposed amendment at 55.59(c) will require facility licensees to submit copies of each annual operating test or comprehensive written examination used for operator requalification for review l

by the Commission at least 30 days prior to conducting the examination or the j

test.

In addition, the proposed rule will amend the " Scope" provisions of the regulations pertaining to operators' licenses to include facility licensees.

l The NRC intends to conduct selected portions of requalification examinations i

pursuant to 55.59(a)(2)(iii) for approximately 17% of the facility licensee i

requalification programs each year. Although the provisions of f

55.59(a)(2)(iii) are in the current regulation, they have not been used for information collection.

In eliminating 55.57(b)(2)(iv), the NRC will use the provisions of 55.59(a)(2)(iii) to meet the requirements of Section 306 of the l'

Nuclear Wasts Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 for NRC administration of requalification examinations, and to assure that licensed operators are being adequately trained and examined in the facility licensee requalification programs.

Facility licensees will be requested to provide approximately 50%

less examination development material for each of these examinations than is i

currently requested to conduct the examinations required under

[

55.57(b)(2)(iv).

t Currently, facility licensees assist in developing and coordinating the NRC-conducted requalification examinations. The assistance includes providing to l

the NRC the training material used for development of the written examinations i

and operating tests and providing facility personnel to work with the NRC during the development and conduct of the examinations. The proposed rule would: (1) reduce the regulatory burden on the facility licensees by reducing i

the effort expended by the facility licensees to assist the NRC in developing and conducting NRC requalification examinations for licensed operators, and (2) increase the regulatory burden on the facility licensees by requiring them to submit all requalification examinations at least 30 days prior to j

conducting the examinations. The revision of the " Scope" of Part 55 is not expected to change any burden because it only eliminates currently existing ambiguities between the regulations of Parts 50 and 55.

Part 50, in sections 50.54(i) through (m), already imposes Part 55 requirements on facility licensees, and Part 55 already specifies requirements for facility licensees.

L The requirements in this 10 CFR Part 55 rulemaking (OMB clearance number 3150-l 0018) are covered under a separate clearance package, " Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator Licensing, Training and Requalification Programs," OMB clearance number 3150-0101.

I v

b There are 75 power reactor and 42 non-power reactor facility licensees affected by these requirements. These licensees will submit copies of comprehensive requalification written examinations approximately once every two years and copies of requalification operating tests annually.

In addition, each year approximately 13 power reactor and 7 non-power reactor f.acility licensees will submit material for NRC to prepare selected portions

~~

of requalification examinations.

Since NRC will only be conducting partial examinations, usually only part of the simulator portion of the operating i

test, the burden for these submittals is expected to be reduced by 50% from the current burden for those facility licensees required to submit material.

?

The "Requalification Examination Feedback Form" covered under OMB Clearance 3150-0159 will no longer be required after the effective date of the final 1

rule implementing the proposed amendments. The reason for this is that the I

amount of information and the frequency of its collection would no longer be sufficient to provide useful feedback.

A.

JUSTIFICATION

{

l.

Need for Collection of Information The proposed change to 55.2, " Scope," is not expected to result in the collection of any new information.

The proposed change to 55.57(b)(2)(iv) is expected to significantly j

reduce the amount of information collected for the development and r

conduct of NRC requalification examinations.

Rather than conducting requalification examinations for license renewal for all licensed I

operators, the NRC intends to conduct selected portions of I

requalification examinations pursuant to 55.59(a)(2)(iii) at each facility at least every 6 years.

1 The information required by the proposed change to 55.59(c) is needed to determine if the facility licensees' requalification examinations conform with 55.59(a)(2)(1) & (ii) and to determine the scope of on-site inspections of facility requalification programs.

2.

Acency Use of Information t

l The new information required by the proposed 55.59(c) (i.e., copies of each comprehensive requalification written examination or annual l

operating test) will be used to determine if the facility licensees' i

requalification examinations conform with 55.59(a)(2){i) & (ii) and to determine the scope of on-site inspections of facility requalification programs.

If the requested information is not collected, the NRC could not determine if the facility licensees' requalification examinations conform with 55.59(a)(2)(i) & (ii) or i

properly determine the scope of on-site inspections of facility requalification programs.

i r

2 i

l

.=.....

i t

3.

Reduction of Burden Throuch Information Technolooy There is no legal obstacle to the use of information technology.

Moreover, NRC encourages its use.

4.

Effort to Identify Duplication I

i This information does not duplicate nor overlap other information collections made by the NRC or other government agencies. The i

information requested is unique to the organization and is of j

1 importance only to the NRC.

j 5.

Effort to Use Similar Information This information is available only from the facility.

i 6.

Effort to Reduce Small Business Burden

[

l l

This information collection does not involve any small businesses.

6 7.

Consecuences of less Frecuent Collection

[

Copies of each comprehensive requalification written examination or requalification annual operating test will be required to be j

submitted to the NRC for review 30 days prior to the conduct of such examination or test in order for the NRC to assure that the examinations and tests are comprehensive and meet the requirements of 55.59(a)(2)(i) & (ii) and to properly determine the scope of on-

)

site inspections of facility requalification programs.

Each facility will submit copies of comprehensive requalification written examinations approximately once every two years and requalification operating tests annually. Additionally, the NRC intends to collect requalification examination development information to conduct selected portions of requalification examinations pursuant to 55.59(a)(2)(iii) at each facility approximately once every 6 years.

Less frequent submission of the information would not assure that

'l the NRC would continue to meet the requirements of Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 for NRC administration l

of requalification examinations, and would not assure the NRC that licensed operators are being adequately trained and examined in the facility licensee requalification programs.

8.

Circumstances Which Justify Variations from OMB Guidelines l

This request does not vary from OMB guidelines.

9.

Consultations Outside the NRC f

There have been no formal consultations outside the NRC. The proposed rule will be published for public comment.

l t

3 l

l l

I

10. Confidentiality of Information The information is not available for public inspection.

Some information is proprietary in nature.

i

11. Justification for Sensitive Ouestions No sensitive information is requested.

l

12. Estimated Annualized Cost to the Federal Government NRC review of written examination and operating tests:

l Licensees Affected Hours per Total Burden Government Cost l

Licensee at $123/Hr Power Reactor: 75 32 2,400 5295,200 Non-power:

42 16 672

$82,656 NRC preparation of portions of examinations:

Licensees Affected Hours per Total Burden Government Cost Licensee at $123/Hr i

Power Reactor: 13 160 2,080

$255,840 Non-power:

7 120 840

$103,320 l

Totals (annualized):

1 Licensees Affected Hours per Total Burden Government Cost j

licensee at $123/Hr Power Reactor: 88 51 4,480

$551,040 Non-power:

49 31 1.512 5185.976 5,992 5737,016 This represents a savings of $276,504 when compared to the current

}'

cost to the Government to administer requalification examinations.

13. Estimate of Industry Burden and Cost Submittal of written examination and operating tests:

Licensees Affected Hours per Total Burden Licensee Cost Licensee at $123/Hr Power Reactor: 75 4

300

$36,900 i

Non-power:

42 0.5 21

$2,583 Additional copying and mailing cost for power reactor licensees:

57.500 (at $100 per licensee) 4 j

b l

I Additional copying and mailing cost for non-power reactor licensees:

142q (at $10 per licensee) t TOTAL LICENSEE COST:

$47.403 i

Submittal of material for NRC preparation of portions of examinations:

f Licensees Affected Hours per Total Burden Licensee Cost Licensee at $123/Hr Power Reactor: 13 4

52

$6,396 Non-power:

7 2

14

$1,722 Additional copying and mailing cost for power reactor. licensees:

$2.275 (at $175 per licensee)

[

i Additional copying and mailing cost for non-power reactor licensees:

$350 (at $50 per licensee)

TOTAL LICENSEE COST:

$10.743 4

Totals (annualized):

Licensees Affected Hours per Total Burden Licensee Cost Licensee at $123/Hr Power Reactor: 88 4

352

$43,296 Non-power:

49 0.7 M

$4.305 387 547,601 Total additional copying and mailing costs:

Power Reactors:

$9,775 Non-power:

5770

$10,545 TOTAL LICENSEE COST FOR ALL REQUIREMENTS:

$58.146

14. Reasons for Chance in Burden j

^

For power reactor facilities, the burden estimated here represents no change in burden hours and a reduction of $2,325 in reproduction effort.

For non-power reactor facilities, the burden here represents a decrease of 5 burden hours and $230 in reproduction effort. Therefore, the additional burden of the requirement for facility licensees to submit copies of each comprehensive requalification written examination or annual operating test will be offset by the reduction in the time required to collect and submit i

material for NRC to prepare and conduct the requalification examinations. The change to the " Scope" of Part 55'is not expected to change any burden.

5 1

I e

i l

=

t

15. Publications for Statistical Use i

i This information is not published for statistical use.

j B.

COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS i

~

Statistical methods are not used in this information collection.

[

I f

I i

l t

I i

i t

c e

h

[

i 1

k I

6

s l

i

[7590-01-P]

l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 55 i

RIN 3150-AE39 Operators' Licenses t

i L

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i ACTION: Proposed rule.

i l

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations to delete the requirement that each licensed operator at power, l

test and research reactors pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal. The proposed amendment will require facility licensees to submit copies of each annual operating test or comprehensive written examination used for operator

[

t requalification for review by the Commission at least 30 days prior to conducting the examination or the test.

In addition, the proposed rule will l

amend the " Scope" provisions of the regulations pertaining to operators' licenses to include facility licensees.

I

c a

f DATES: The comment period expires (60 days from date of publication).

Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do l

so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments re'ceived cp or before this date.

2 -

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver comments to: One Whit e Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7

15 pm on Federal workdays.

Copies of the draft regulatory analysis, i as copies of the comments received on the proposed rule, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, l

2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Rajender Auluck, P.E., Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: (301) 492-3794, or David Lange, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 504-3171.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 305 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982 authorized and directed the NRC "to promulgate regulations, or other appropriate Commission regulatory guidance, for the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear power plant operaters supervisors, technicians and other 2

appropriate operating personnel." The regulations or guidance were to

" establish simulator training requirements for applicants for civilian nuclear power plant operator licenses and for operator requalification programs;

~~

requirements governing NRC administration of requalification examinations; requirements for operating tests at civilian nuclear power plant simulators, f

and instructional requirements for civilian nuclear power plant licensee l

personnel training programs." On March 25, 1987 (52 FR 9453), the Commission acccmplished the objectives of the NWPA that were related to licensed operators by publishing a final rule in the Federal Register that amended l

10 CFR Part 55, effective May 26, 1987. The amendment revised the 'acensed operator requalification program by establishing (1) simulator training requirements, (2) requirements for operating tests at simulators, and (3) instructional requirements for the program (formerly Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 55). The final rule also stipulated that in lieu er the Commission accepting certification by the facility licensee that the licensee has passed written examinations and operating tests given by the facility licensee within its Commission approved program developed by usir.g a systems approach to i

training (SAT), the Commission may give a comprehensive requalification written examination and an annual operating test.

In addition, the amended regulations required each licensed operator to pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of the operator's 6-year license as a prerequisite for license renewal.

Following the 1987 amendment to Part 55, the NRC began conducting operator requalification examinations for the purpose of license renewal. As a result of conducting these examinations, the NRC determined that nearly all 3

i

t facility requalification programs met the Commission's expectations and that the NRC examiners were largely duplicating tasks that were already required of, and routinely performed by, the facility licensees.

The NRC revised its requalification examination procedures in~ 1988-to

'~

focus on performance-based evaluation criteria that closely paralleled the training and evaluation process used for a SAT based training program. This revision to the NRC requalification examination process enabled the NRC to I

conduct comprehensive examinations for the purpose of renawing an individual's license and, at the same time, use the results of the examinations to determine the adequacy of the facility licensee's requalification training i

program.

Since the NRC began conducting operator requalification examinations, the facility program and individual pass rates have improved from 81 to 90 percent and from 83 to 91 percent, respectively, through fiscal year 1991.

The NRC has also observed a general improvement in the quality of the facility licensees' testing materials and in the performance of their operating test i

evaluators. Of the first 79 program evaluations conducted, ten (10) programs were evaluated as unsatisfactory. The NRC issued Information Notice No. 90-54, " Summary of Requalification Program Deficiencies," dated August 28, 1990, to describe the technical deficiencies that contributed to i

the first 10 program failures. Since that time only six programs, of 120 subsequent program evaluations, have been evaluated as unsatisfactory.

j Pilot requalification examinations were conducted in August through December of 1991. The pilot test procedure directed the NRC examiners to focus on the evaluation of crews, rather than individuals, in the simulator i

portion of the operating test.

In conducting the pilot examinations, the NRC l

4 l

examiners and the facility evaluators independently evaluated the crews and compared their results.

The results were found to be in total agreement.

Furthermore, the NRC examiners noted that the facility evaluators were

~~

competent at evaluating crews and individuals and were aggressive in finding a

deficiencies and recommending remediation for operators who exhibited weaknesses. The performance of the facilities' evaluators during the pilot examinations further confirmed that the facility licensees can find deficiencies, and remediate and retest their licensed operators' appropriately.

I Discussion In accordance with 9 55.57(b)(2)(iii), licensed operat6rs are required to pass facility requalification examinations and annual operating tests.

In 5 55.57(b)(2)(iv), licensed operators are also required to pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of a 6-year license. These regulations establish requirements which impose a dual responsibility on both the facility licensee which assists in developing and conducting its own as well as NRC requalification examinations, and the NRC which supervises both the facility licensee requalification program as well as conducting a comprehensive requalification examination during the term of an operator's 6-year license.

1 The NRC believes operational safety at each facility will continue to be ensured, and, in fact, will be improved, if NRC resources are directed towards inspecting and overseeing the facility requalification programs rather than continuing to conduct individual operator requalification examinations. The P

5 i

l NRC's experience since the beginning of the requalification program indicates that weaknesses in the implementation of the facility program are generally the root cause of deficiencies in the performance of operators. The NRC could 2

~~

more effectively allocate its resources to perform on-site inspections of j

facility requalification examination and training programs in accordance with I

indicated programmatic performance rather than scheduling examiners in f

accordance with the number of individuals requiring license renewal. The NRC expects to find and correct programmatic weaknesses more rapidly and improve operational safety by redirecting the examiner resources to inspect programs.

As of October 9,1992, the NRC had conducted requalification examinations at 11 research and test reactor facilities for a total of 34 operators being examined. No failures were identified. For research and test reactors, this sample provides the NRC with little data to support the same rationale that is discussed above with respect to power reactors. However, the NRC believes that the flexibility to allocate resources based on indicated F. grammatic performance rather than on the number of individuals requiring license renewal would also improve operational safety at research and test reactors.

In addition, the proposed rule does not prevent the NRC from conducting requalification examinations at research and test reactor t

facilities.

Currently, facility licensees assist in the development and conduct of L

the NRC requalification examinations. The assistance includes providing to the NRC (1) the training material used for development of the written and operating examinations and (2) facility personnel to work with the NRC during the development and conduct of the examinations. The proposed amendments P

would reduce the regulatory burden on the facility licensees by reducing the 6

P

f effort expended by the facility to assist the NRC in developing and conducting NRC requalification examinations for licensed operators.

As part of the proposed rule change, the facility licensees would be

~~

required to submit to the NRC each annual operating test or comprehensive written examination used for operator requalification at least 30 days prior i

to giving the test or examination. The NRC would review these examinations on an audit basis for conformance with 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(i&ii). The NRC would j

also review other information already available to the staff to determine the scope of an on-site inspection of the facility requalification program. The NRC would continue to expect each facility to meet all of the conditions required for conducting a requalification program in accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c).

Licensed operators would not have to take any additional actions. Each l

operator would continue to meet all the conditions of his or her license j

described in 10 CFR 55.53, which includes passing the facility-conducted requalification examinations for license renewal.

Each licensed operator I

would be expected to continue to meet the requirements of the facility requalification training program. However, the licensed operator would no longer be required to pass a requalification examination conducted by the NRC during the term of his or her license as a condition of license renewal.

The " Scope" of Part 55, s 55.2, will be revised to include facility licensees. This is an addition to the regulation.

It eliminates currently I

existing ambiguities between the regulations rf Parts 50 and 55.

Part 50, in j

i 6 50.54(i) through (m), already imposes Part 55 requirements on facility i

licensees, and Part 55 already specifies requirements for facility licensees.

i i

+

The proposed amendments would meet the requirements of Section 306 of l

the NWPA without the requirement that each licensed individual pass a requalification examination conducted by the NRC during the 6-year term of the individual's license. The requirements of the NWPA would be met as folkws:

1) the regulations would continue to require facilities to have requalification programs and conduct requalification examinations; 2) the NRC would provide oversight (i.e., administration) for these programs and examinations through inspections; and 3) 6 55.59(a)(2)(iii) provides that the NRC may conduct requalification examinations in lieu of accepting the facility licensee's certification that a licensed individual has passed the facility requalification examination. The NRC will use this option if warranted after an on-site inspection of the facility's requalification program. The proposed amendments would not affect the regulatory or other appropriate guidance required by Section 306 of the NWPA and established in 1 55.59(a

)(iii) for the NRC to conduct requalification examinations in lieu of an examination given by the facility.

Invitation To Comment l

Comments concerning the scope, content, and implementation of the proposed amendments are encouraged. Comments are solicited on the burden created by the requirement that each facility licensee submit and the NRC review all annual operating tests or comprehensive written examinations at

(

least thirty days prior to conducting such tests or exams.

In addition, comments on the applicability of the proposed amendments to research and test i

O reactor facilities are especially solicited, as are suggestions for 1

alternatives to those rulemaking methods described in this notice.

a -

Commissioner Rogers' separate views.

Commissioner Rogers believes that the staff should be allowed the discretion to administer exams as they feel necessary, i.e., other than for cause, without receiving prior Commission approval.

Reasons for allowing the staff to administer discretionary exams include:

1.

Providing an additional incentive to licensees to maintain the quality of their operator training programs.

2.

Providing a benchmark with good performing plants by which to judge the adequacy of the licensees' operator training programs.

3.

Providing a basis to determine whether or not licensee examiner standards need to be revised.

4.

Providing an independent check of the quality of the licensees' operator training programs.

5.

Providing the NRC staff the opportunity to maintain its examination expertise.

9

6.

Ensuring that the latest, state-of-the-art testing and assessment techniques are being used.

a -

~~

Commissioner Curtiss' separate views.

The staff has proposed that they be allowed to administer requalification examinations in two situations:

(i) where cause exists for administering such examinations; and (ii) on a periodic basis, at a specified frequency of once every six years at each facility. There is no disagreement within the Commission over allowing the staff to administer "for cause" examinations.

The dispute arises over whether the staff should be afforded the discretion to administer examinations in situations other than where "cause" exists, without first coming to the Commission for advance approval. The staff has recommended that they be allowed the flexibility to administer such examinations at their discretion and, with one minor exception, I agree with the staff's recommendation.

[I do not believe it wise or essential to specify a set periodicity for such examinations of once every six years, and, on this point, I concur in the majority view).

The majority, as I understand it, would limit the staff to administering examinations solely "for cause", and would not allow the staff to administer i

examinations in any other situation absent formal approval by the Commission (i.e., where, in the staff's discretion, the staff deems it appropriate to do so). There are compelling reasons, in my judgment, for cllowing the staff the flexibility to administer such " discretionary" enminations on its own accord.

In this regard, Commissioner Rogers has set forth the reasons for allowing the E

10 1

staff to administer such examinations, and I concur in the reasons that he has articulated so persuasively.

Given the significant changes in the agency's operator requalificati6n program that the staff has proposed in SECY-92-430 (and in which I generally concur),

I would have preferred a more cautious transition, wherein the effectiveness of the new regulatory approach could be confirmed through such discretionary examinations, before placing reliance on "for cause" examinations and an unproven inspection regime. This is particularly important given the continuing identification of weaknesses in licensee training programs uncovered by our current examination process. Accordingly, I believe that it would be a prudent step to allow the staff this flexibility.

In my judgment, the majority's insistence upon requiring the staff to come to the Commission for advance approval in every such instance is, as a practical matter, likely to discourage the staff from administering such examinations where they may indeed be warranted.

For the foregoing reasons, I disagree with the decision of the majority to foreclose the staff from administering examinations in such circumstances, absent formal approval by the Commission.

I also associate myself with Commissioner Rogers' comments.

i I

11

1 Additional comments of the Chairman, and Commissioners Remick and de Planque.

The Chairman and Commissioners Remick and de Planque believe that all of the objectives listed by Commissioner Rogers and endorsed by Commissione' CtIrtiss can be met, and are being met, through various alternatives to administering requalification tests and exams periodically.

For example, the staff will continue to administer an estimated 700-800 initial operator license examina-tions per year; it will conduct examinations for cause using the flexible authority already provided by the regulations, and as otherwise approved by the Commission; it will observe the administration of examinations by the licensees as part of both the NRC's inspection program activities and INP0's and the National Academy of Nuclear Training's accreditation and assessment activities, permitted by the NRC/INPO MOU; and the staff will have the benefit of continuous observation by Resident Inspectors.

These existing alternatives provide considerable opportunity for the staff to assess the effectiveness of licensee training programs.

Indeed, the proposed i

Statement of Considerations says that the agency " expects to find and correct programmatic weaknesses more rapidly and improve operational safety by redirecting the examiner resources to inspect programs," (p. 6, our emphasis.)

If the staff identifies weaknesses in licensee training programs, the staff may then exercise the flexible authority of 10 CFR 55.59 (a)(2)(iii) to

)

administer requalification tests and exams for cause.

l Staff expertise needed to administer requalification tests and examinations can also be maintained by participation in training courses, just as staff 12

expertise such as that needed by IIT members is maintained.

Innovative con-i i

cepts like administering examinations and tests to instructors and appropriate i

operator licensing personnel on the simulators at the Technical Training Center is another way of maintaining this kind of staff expertise.

2 -

If the staff finds that with experience there is, in fact, a basis for administering periodic exams or any other alternatives, they are at liberty to provide the rationale and plan for Commission consideration. However, the information the staff has presented does not convince us of any necessity for administering periodic exams.

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Availability The NRC has determined that the proposed amendments, if adopted, are the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1).

Therefore, neither an er.vironmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing 13 t

1 i

i instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the I

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection

'~

of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the -

l Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory j

Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-3019, (3150-0018 and ?l50-0101),

Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed regulation. The analysis examines the values (benefits) and impacts (costs) of implementing the proposed regulation for licensed operator requalification.

The draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Rajender Auluck (see ADDRESSES heading).

i Regulatory Flexibility Certification f

i i

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Commission certifies that this rule will <ot have a significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. This rule primarily affects the companies that own and operate light-water nuclear power reactors.

The companies that own and operate these-reactors do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entity" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility i

14 i

o Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121. Since these companies are dominant in their service areas, this rule does not fall within the purview of 2 -

i its Act.

Backfit Analysis Currently, facility licensees assist in developing and coordinating the NRC-conducted requalification examinations. The assistance includes providing to the NRC the training material used for development of the written examinations and operating tests and providing facility personnel to work with i

the NRC during the development and conduct of the examinations. The Commission has concluded on the basis of the documented evaluation required by 10 CFR Part 50.109(a)(4), that complying with the requirement of this proposed rule would:

(1) reduce the regulatory burden on the facility licensees by reducing the effort expended by the facility licensees to assist the NRC in developing and conducting NRC requalification examinations for licensed operators, and (2) increase the regulatory burden on the facility licensees by requiring them to submit all requalification examinations at least 30 days prior to conducting the examinations.

As part of the proposed amendments, the facility licensees would be required to submit to the appropriate Regional Administrator each annual requalification operating test or comprehensive written requalification

^

examination at least 30 days prior to conducting such test or examination.

The NRC would review these examinations on an audit basis for conformance with 10 CFR 55.59(a)(2)(i&ii). The NRC would conduct this review and review other 15 u

i

o

?

1 information already available to the NRC to determine the scope of an on-site inspection of the facility requalification program. The NRC would continue to expect each facility to meet all of the conditions required of a i

2

~~

requalification program in accordance with 10 CFR 55.59(c).

Licensed operators would not have to take any additional actions.

Each operator would be expected to continue to meet all the conditions of his or her license described in 10 CFR 55.53, which includes passing the facility requalification examinations for license renewal.

Each licensed operator would be expected to continue to meet the requirements of the facility requalification training program. However, the licensed operator would no longer be required to pass a requalification examination conducted by the NRC i

during the term of his or her lict nse, in addition to passing the facility licensee's requalification examinata ns, as a condition of license renewal.

The " Scope" of Part 55, 10 CFR 55.2, would be revised to include facility licensees. This is an addition to the regulation.

It eliminates currently existing ambiguities between the regulations of Parts 50 and 55.

)

Part 50, in sections 50.54(i) through (m), already imposes Part 55 requirements on facility licensees, and Part 55 already specifies requirements for facility licensees.

The Commission believes that licensed operators are one of the main l

components and possibly the most critical component of continued safe reactor operation, especially with respect to mitigating the consequences of emergency t

conditions. Two-thirds of the requalification programs that have been evaluated as " unsatisfactory" had significant problems in the quality or implementation of the plant's emergency operating procedures (EOPs).

In some of these cases, the facility licensees did not train their operators on 16

F 3

t challenging simulator scenarios or did not retrain their operators after the f

I E0Ps were revised.

The Commission believes that it could have identified these problems sooner by reviewing facility requalification examinations and operating tests and inspecting facility requalification training and 3 -

f

~~

examination programs.

Facility licensees could have then corrected these problems and improved overall operator job performance sooner.

i This proposed rule is intended to improve operational safety by providing the means to find and correct weaknesses in facility licensee requalification programs more rapidly than provided for under the current i

regulations. The experience gained from conducting NRC requalification examinations indicates that the NRC is largely duplicating the efforts of the facility licensees. The NRC could more effectively use its resources to oversee facility licensee requalification programs rather than conducting individual operator requalification examinations for all licensed operators.

l During fiscal year (FY) 1991, the NRC expended approximately 15 full-time staff equivalents (FTE) and 51.8 million in contractor assistance funds (which equates to almost 10 additional FTE), for a total of 25 FTE, to conduct requalification examinations. However, the staff expects to conduct about 20 percent fewer requalification examinations during FY 1993 through FY 1997 because the staff's examination efforts to date have greatly reduced the number of operators who require an NRC conducted examination for license renewal during this 4-year period. Consequently, if the NRC continues conducting requalification examinations for all licensed operators, the staff estimates that it would require approximately 20 FTE each year. Therefore, implementing the proposed requalification inspection program would save the l

o 17 i

i

\\

u equivalent of about 7 FTE (or_51.3 million) each year over conducting requalification examinations at the reduced rate for the long term.

i Each facility licensee would centinue in its present manner of conducting its licensed operator requalification program. However,' this j

proposed rule would reduce the burden on the facility licensees because each facility licensee would have its administrative and technical staff expend fewer hours than are now needed to assist in developing and conducting the NRC l

requalification examinations. Facility licensees are expected to realize a l

combined annual operational cost savings of approximately 5820K.

In summary, the proposed rule is expected to result in improved operational safety by providing more timely identification of weaknesses in facility licensees' requalification programs.

In addition, the proposed rule would also reduce the resources expended by both the NRC and the licensees.

The Commission has, therefore, concluded that the proposed rule meets the l

requirements of 10 CFR 50.109, that there would be a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety and the cost of implementation are justified.

I List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 55 Criminal penalty, Manpower training programs, Nuclear power plants and l

reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

i h

f 18 i

f i;

i Text of Final Regulation n

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 eof-1974, as amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 as follows:

i PART 55 - OPERATORS' LICENSES 1.

The authority citation for 10 CFR 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, i

i 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 sec. 306, Pub. L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61 also issued l'

under secs. 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).

2.

In s 55.2, paragraph (c) is added to read as follows:

s 55.2 Scone 1

(c)

Any facility licensee.

9 55.57 TAmendedl 3.

Section 55.57(b)(2)(iv) is amended by removing paragraph (b)(2)(iv).

4.

In s 55.59 the introductory text of paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:

19

[

- ~ -

5 5 55.59 Recualification (c)

Requalification program requirements. A facility licensee

~~

shall have a requalification program reviewed and approved by the Commission and shall submit a copy of each comprehensive requalification written examination or annual operating test to the appropriate Regional Administrator at least 30 days prior to conducting such examination or test. The requalification program must meet the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section.

In lieu of paragraphs (c)(2), (3), and (4) of t

this section, the Commission may approve a program developed by using a systems approach to training.

l t

i Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of

, 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i l

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

r t

L 20 3

4 l

r-i i

[7590-01]

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

r D'ocuments Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements

'~

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review t

I AGENCY:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) l i

ACTION:

Notice of' the OMB review of. information collection.

SUMMARY

The NRC has recently submitted to the OMB for review the following I

proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of j

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980_(44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

i 1.

Type of submission, new, revision, or extension:

Revision 2.

The title of the information collection:

10 CFR Part 55,-

l i

Operators' Licenses, Proposed Rule l

i l

3.

The form number if applicable: N/A i

-)

4.

How often the collection is required: Annually l

'I 5.

Who will be required or asked to report: All power and non-1 power reactor licensees.

t l

t i

y

.l

~

o u

6.

An estimate of the number of annual responses:

88 for power reactors and 49 for non-power reactors An estimate of the total number of hours needed to complete l

~~

7.

4 the requirement or request: 352 hours0.00407 days <br />0.0978 hours <br />5.820106e-4 weeks <br />1.33936e-4 months <br /> annually for power l

reactors (approximately 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> per response) and 35 hours4.050926e-4 days <br />0.00972 hours <br />5.787037e-5 weeks <br />1.33175e-5 months <br /> annually for non-power reactors (approximately 0.75 hours8.680556e-4 days <br />0.0208 hours <br />1.240079e-4 weeks <br />2.85375e-5 months <br /> per response) i 8.

An indication of whether Section 3504(h), Pub. L 96-511 l

t applies: Applicable l

s t

9.

Abstract: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is f

proposing to amend its regulations to delete the i

i prerequisite for license renewal that each licensed operator -

9 pass a comprehensive requalification written examination and

}

l I

an operating test conducted by the NRC during the term of.

1 the operator's 6-year license. The proposed amendment will j

require facility licensees to submit copies of each annual.

d operating test or comprehensive written examination used for h

operator requalification to the Commission for review at f

5 least 30 days prior to conducting the examination or the

{

{

test.

In addition, the proposed rule will amend the " Scope" provisions of the-regulations pertaining to operators' I

licenses to include facility licensees.

4 2

i

~...,,. -..

~

r-('

• e Copies of the submittal may be inspected or obtained for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.

~

'~

Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer:

Ronald Minsk Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0018 and 3150-0101)

NE08-3019 Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC 20503 i

Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3084.

i NRC Clearance officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 492-8132.

7, DatedatBethesda, Maryland,this/

day of 1993.

t For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission b

Gerald F. Cranford, Design ed SeniorKficial f

for Information Resource Management 1

<l 3

.]

I