ML20126G731

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re Requalification Exam Feedback Form

ML20126G731
Person / Time
Issue date:	12/28/1992
From:	Cranford G NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
To:
References
OMB, NUDOCS 9301040212
Download: ML20126G731 (14)

Text

. . - - -. . ~ . .. -_- .

. , DmICETD OILICW11

_ . ')

/ "

.~

. Certified.D7_,

manoa,oro, mss '

" ~ '

54v Septemoes 1983)

Request for 0MB Review Imp:rtant

Read nutruct;ons t,efore comp lcting form. Do not use the astr.e ST E3 - - Send three copics of this form, the material to be reviewed,:nd for Lto requsst both an Executive Order 12291 review and approval under paperwork-three copies of the supporting statement, to:

the Paperwork Reduction Act.

Answer all questions in Part 1. If this request is for review under E.0, Office of information and Regulatory Affairs 12291, complete Part ll and sign the regulatory certification. If this Office of Management and Budget ^.

reouest is for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act and 5 CFR Attention: Docket Ubrary, Room 3201 132', , skip Pa't ll. complete Part in and sign the paperwork certification. Washington, DC 20503 JAF(T l.-Complete This Part for All Requests, i i. Decartment/ agency and Bureau /othee originating request 2. Agency coae >

U.S-_ Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3. .L :_i s__.0- ~

1. Narne of person wno can cest answe, questions rega'amg inis requnt Telepnone numoer

~

Roterta Ingram (3011 35 04-1219

' 4. Title of information cocection or ruienaking Requalification Examination feedback Form

1. Legai autnnnty be iniormation c onection or r uie (c2re omreo states Coce, Pvanc ta v. cr Esec.stive Orcer) 42 2201 (n) - ,

__ _ _USC . or

S. Atiectea puonc(cacen ad(nar. ropy > $ 0 Federalagenciesor employees

- 1 C ndividuais or nousencios 3 C farms 6 0 Non.prohtinstitutions-4 I eusinesses or etner tor.orof t 7 0 smaii nusinesses or orgamzations -

2 O srate orincar eovernments 4

JART ll.-Complete This Part only if the Recuest is for OMB Review Under Executive Order 122911 [ h E Regulation 8dentifief Numbei(RIN)

- _ _ _ , ~'~~~ _ ,_ . _ J. c t None asi;gnedb

1. Tyve or suom ss,cn screat one m eacn r;ategorya _ _

Type of revrew requeisted

' Cl.tssification . Stage of development l' O, Stanaard

- 2 O uaior  : O erocosederarait 2 O eending <

-- 2 C Nonmajor 2 2 C Finalorintenmfinal.wtnonororeposal 3 C Emergency .

3 C Finat or intenm tmaisthout onor proposal . 4 O statutoivorjud.ciaideadone

~ 9. CFR sect:on artected

) _

CFR- - -

_10. Does this regulat:on contam reporting or recorakeeping requirements 19at require OMB approvat unaer the Pape' worn Reduction Act 1 and 5 CFR 132c?

.O.ves -~ O No E i =11. If J major ru'e, is there a regulatory impact analysis attached? _ 1 C Yes 2 O No if"No." did OMB waive the analysis? -

c 3 0 Yes i O No' L Certification for Regulatory Submissions in submittmg trus request for OMB review. tite authonzed regulatory contact and ~ ne program offician certify that trie requirements of E o 12291 and any apphcable

- aoucy directwes nave been compbed with.

3,gnature of program otncial Date -

Signature of aatnonzea regulatory contact Date l

y _

i

' t2.(ChtB use cruyt

areous.o nons coso.te - 93og040212 921228 3 ice st.no.,e Form aa (ne sg ;'

nsa n4oco m o34 scra132NcEo$2$t-

~PDR. DRG --

EUSOgBDR ;

PART Hl.-C:mpi:te This Part Ony if th) R: quest is f:r Appt:v:lef a C:ll:cti:n cf Int;tmation undit the Peperwirk CeductI:n Act end 6 CF R 1320. ,,.

n. Atattact- c ese nbe reeds. usei end affected puta c in so wardi oness " Nuclear facilities, Operator, License" Questionnaire will be used to evaluate the stress level associated with NRC administered operator requalification exminations which industry feels is contributing to a high failure rate. Results will be used to improve the examination proceis.

)4. l ype of miormat'on roilection (chece omy one)

Information tohecttons not contamed in rules 1 [ Negutor subwsvon 2 ) t r'ie'(t hey subemstion (t erfAshol ettached)

InforMatson tchectrons containedin tubes 3 U Lostmg repation (no c hartre proposes) (. I mai e' imer m f ma' m'tr%1 pnt' l' PW 7. Enter cate of espected or actual f eceta!

4 U Nobte of prcpeted rutemakmgINMM A C Aegear sewse herster putmcabon at tha state of ruiemakmg b b tina!, t#'RM was previously Dubbshed b C tme'genc, tute, ssion(cert r(aty"t attache ('

e (month, vay, yes')

ls. lype of revien th0uested (check only one) 1 C fvew coherbnn 4 O ke-nstatement of a previously approved cohectionie' which approval 2 h Nevision of a currently apprUvfd Codection

'" ~

3 C Latension bf the espiranon date of a currently approvec tohection L U E ristirig couection in use without an oMB contros tiumber without any t hage in the substante or pn tne met 4d of tonecbon

\(. A Vnt$

f repolt fQrm n\6mbe]s)(If!ct,Joc $tandarojoptsQnW tQ'tri nympergg)) ' 22. Vv' post c-f lnfcJmation cohec1lon (Check a$ may a$ apply)

. ADblicahon f Df benet.ts Ibfl0 2 3 Frtfram evaluat.0 ;

17. Armue! repo't1 cr discio:.v't bu'oce ] j ,,aiNrpm stW W 1 bumper of responceris 675 7 %n,,y, co.n3,m 2 NumDer of resDontes per responcem I

-1_ A 1 P'opam penag or mananment 3 Total annua! responses (Ice J I,mes hne U ,,

( C heparcs 4 Hou's per response .5  : Ave, s ,ot erw_yy. hnem 340 W Annusifetcrutecomg tiuroen j 23. r reuuenu of recoroncepinF or reporting tchec A su that appif) 1 Number of recorokeepers NM  ! 1; k e c o,o ,,,p,ng 2 Anna tiours per recorokeepv .

hepotim; 3 T ots reco'cheepmg hou s f une J times I; rte 7) { , 2 O on occasion 4 Hecordecepmgittention perio:  !

yea % 3 ] y,,g IL Totai amiutiburcen .

e ] peng 1 kcouested (bne 17 5 plus ime ]$ 3) . 3b0 1 L D Qaarten; l

? tn current oMb inventory 0 1 6 0 sem annvacy 3 Dif'erence (une J eess hne O b 340 7 G Annoag Laplanatson ot detterence l 5 Wennshy a hogram chang, p 340 c, O otn ,3 ,,cno,3 __.

t Aptnet .  ! i

20. Current (inost rerent) oMB controi numte or comment numtier  ! 24. Rewonoents' obhgation te compiy (cneck the strongest opvat o i thar apphes) 3150-0159- _

1 3 v m nt,,y

21. hequesteu enDuat<on cate 2 0 %irem omm er retam a bene [t 3 years from approval i 3 D wncaw, IL. A'e the responcents primardy educational agencies or mstitutions o'is the pnmary pu* pose of the cohection reisted to Feoerai education programs? O Ves D N:-

, 2 0. Does the agency we sampung to select sespondents or does the agency recommenc or pre $cr@e the use of samphng or statistical analysis D, responcentd . C Yes b N:

27l hegsatory authority for the mtormation conectton 10 cfR 55 :ct rR :or other(spec 4) hp3rworh Certtheatton M submttting tNs request for oMB aporovat, tne agency heat the sen or e%ctM or an authonzed representatrve. certthes that the requirements of 5 CFR D20, the Prrvacy Act, statistical standards or d>rectives, and any other applicable it' formation pokey directives have been compbed with

- b'Fosture of program official Date c ! or an authonzed r tive Date -

Egnature of ageg a thegn Gerald b Cranford, D for Inf mationPfourcesManagement /Hrf/92 5= a -- -

4 Gro 1984 0 - 453-776

^t ..

.. }

SUPPORllNG STATEMEliT FOR REQUAllflCA110ll EXAMINATION FEEDBACK FORM (OMB Clearance No. 3150-0159)

DERipT10fL9F Ifif0RMAT104 CplLECTI(di In the f all of 1989, the NRC conducted a survey of 13 power reactor licensees to gain a broader view of the effect of flRC activities on the safe operation of nuclear power plants, part of this survey addressed the Licensed Operator Requalification Program. Industrs observations and perceptions were reported in fiUREG-1395, " Industry Perce;tions of the Impact of the U.S. fluclear Regulatory Commission on Nuclear Power Plant Activities." The results indicated that the requalification process led to a heightened level of stress -

on the operators, had this stress may have led to operator failures during requalification.

Because of these industry concerns and the possible impact on safe plant operation, i1RC staff conducted an assessment of the possible causes of operator stress during f1RC-conducted requalification examinations. Based on the results of this study, reported in SECY-91-391, "Results of the Study of Requalification Examination Stress," the f4RC staff took actions to reduce the undue examination stress on licensed operators.

The purpose of this requalification examination feedback form is to survey the participants of NRC-conducted requalification examinations at power reactors and to collect current information on undue stress caused by those examinations. At the conclusion of each facility licensee's NRC-conducted requalification examination, the participants will be asked to rate and comment on the degree of undue examination stress present in five aspects of the examination, the pre-examination interactions with the llRC, written examination section A (Plant and Control Systems), written examination section B (Administrative Controls / Procedural Limits), the dynamic simulator examination, and the job performance measures portion of the operatirg test.

The participants are also requested to comment on practices they believe would be successful in reducing undue examination stress. The NRC will review licensee comments to determine the success of actions takan to reduce undue stress and also to further evaluate future requalification program revisions.

A. JUSilflCATION

1. Need for Collection of Information In SECY-91-391, the staff advised the Commission that it would establish a formal mechanism for collecting information on requalification examination stress by adding a feedback form to NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards " The information collected is necessary to measure the success of the actions taken by the staff to reduce undue examination stress as a result of SECY-91-391.

4

O

2. AqenCY Use of Information Information and suggestions from this survey will be used to: (1) measure the success of the NRC and facility licensees' efforts to reduce undue stress during the requalification examinations, (2) identify additional sources of undue stress still inherent in the examination process, and (3) develop changes to the requalification program that would further reduce undue examination stress.

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

Moreover, the NRC encourages its use; however, for the purposes of this information collection, it was not deemed appropriate.

4. Effort to identify dud}ication No other information regarding operator stress during requalification is known to exist.

5. Effort to Use similar Information No similar information is available.

6. Effort t.g Reduce Small Business Burdrn Small business is not affected by the information collection.

7. Consenuences of less freauent Collection feedback from the respondents will be used by NRC regional managers to monitor undue examination stress and to recommend requalification -

examination modifications that may further reduce operator stress, if appropriate. Modifications to the program to reduce operator stress are continually being made. Requalification exams with completion of feedback forms are done every time a requal exam is administered. (These exams are admiaistered at approximately 50% of the facilities each year.) If the feedback forms were collected less frequently, it would not be possible to evaluate the effects of program changes made during the previous time period and implement additional improvements.

8. Circum 51ances WAlch Justify Variations from OMB Guidelines This information does not vary from OMB guidelines.

9. Consultations Outside the NRC lhere have been no outside consultations since the original questionnaire was developed.

10. Confidentiality of Information Proprietary confidential information will be protected in accordance with the provisions of 10 CfR 2.790 (b). However, none is anticipated.

11. Justification for Sensitive Ouestioni This information collection does not require the submittal of sensitive information.

12. Estimated Anm) ired Cost to the federal Government The NRC expects 675 questionnaire submittals each year. The review time for the Regional staff will be anproximately 10 minutes (.1667 hours0.0193 days <br />0.463 hours <br />0.00276 weeks <br />6.342935e-4 months <br />) per response. It is expected that approximately 25_ percent of the forms will be forwarded to Headquarters, for review and that-those reviews will also take about 10 minutes each. Therefore, the total annual burden for the questionnaire review is expected to _be 143 hours0.00166 days <br />0.0397 hours <br />2.364418e-4 weeks <br />5.44115e-5 months <br /> (675 x .1667 hours0.0193 days <br />0.463 hours <br />0.00276 weeks <br />6.342935e-4 months <br /> / response plus 170 x .1667 hours0.0193 days <br />0.463 hours <br />0.00276 weeks <br />6.342935e-4 months <br /> / response). Thus, the annual Federal cost is expected to be

$17,589 (143 hours0.00166 days <br />0.0397 hours <br />2.364418e-4 weeks <br />5.44115e-5 months <br /> x $123). The burden estimate is based on staff experience.

13. Estimate of Industry Burden and Cost It is estimated that 675 plant personnel will. respond annually to this questionnaire,- . Approximately 30 minutes will_ be required by-each person to respond to this questionnaire. Therefore, the total-industry' burden is expected to be-approximately-340 hours, at an annual cost of approximately $41,820 (340 hours0.00394 days <br />0.0944 hours <br />5.621693e-4 weeks <br />1.2937e-4 months <br /> x $123).

Recordkeeping requirements are not-applicable to this information collection,

14. Reasons for Chance in Burqan The purpose of the original survey conducted _under OMB approval number 3150-0159, which' utilized interviews and_ questionnaires, was to identify the sources of undue operator stress throughout-the requalification examination process. The purpose of this survey, which uses only_ questionnaires, is to monitor.the success of the actions taken by the NRC and the industry _to reduce operator-stress.

during requalification examinations. This survey will be collected at each site for each annual requalification examination, whereas the original survey'was collected-only once at limi.ted si_tes.

Therefore, this change will-increase the burden.

15. Publications for Statistical Usg L

L The NRC does not' publish information submitted in accordance with- .

L-Part 55 for. statistical use. .l ji 5

=

L - _

7

. . ..- _ . . _ _ ..s._. .

. .m_ _...- . _ . _ ._ ...

r i

. 4 i

.B. LQllECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS.

Statistical methods are not used in'the collection of information specified in 10 CFR Part 55.

?

Attachment:

Requalification feedback form I

p

?

r Y

I l

'k i

P h

l f w

h l .-

l . 4 1

,,+w.- y , u y.. , u -

3 .. - , - , . - , - , ,#4.,.,,, ,y . , , . , + - ' " ' + - - ' ~ m --

ENCLOSURE l Requalification Examination i Feedback Questionnaire Introduction i The NRC is requesting feedback regarding the conduct of requalification examinations. The information provided will be used to monitor, on a generic  !

basis, the effectiveness of the NRC's and facility licensee's efforts to- j minimize undue stress in the examination process.

This questionnaire is not intended as a means of resolving technical or $

process concerns pertaining to a specific examination. Such concerns will be resolved using the guidance in NUREG-1021 " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards."

instructions ,

Completion of this questionnaire is voluntary. If you choose to respond, please answer the questions in accordance with these instructions:

- The questions on this questionnaire pertain to the examination administered by (Reaion) at (facility licensee)-during (exam dates 1; '

however, comparisons with previous examinations may be appropriate.

- Any examinee or individual involved in the development or administration of the_ examination is encouraged to complete this questionnaire.

• Mail completed forms to: (NRC Reaional Office)

(c/o Operator Licensina Branch-Chief)

Your Backaround Please check the appropriate box (es) that describe your. involvement in this examination, examinee -

involved in developing the examination involved in administering the examination examination' observer other (specify):

Please check all of the boxes that describe your current position.

RO - SRO operating crew member training department- operations department other (specify):

q a y .- 9 w. *i - - , - - - -

r p7 -e a'ywe P +%r'11-- ) C

Stress vs. Undue Stress The following questions require you to make a judgment of whether there was undue stress during the examination. Examinations are inherently stressful events and therefore it is important that you make a distinction between stress and undue stress when making your judgments. Undue stress is.

unnecessary or inappro)riate stress which can be practically eliminated without compromising tie validity of the examination. The distinction between stress and undue stress'is not a matter of whether the stress was extreme or mild. When making your judgments you should follow these steps:

First, consider the cause of the stress. Would it have been possible and practical to eliminate the cause of the stress without compromising the validity of the examination? If your answer is no, then no undue stress was present. (See point #1 on the rating scale below.)

If your answer is yes, consider the magnitude of the stress. A source of stress may be unnecessary but also sufficiently small in magnitude _ to be unlikely to af fect an individual's performance in the examination.

(See point #2 on the rating scale below.)- The alternative is that the source may be unnecessary and also of sufficient magnitude to be likely to affect an individual's performance in the examination. (See point #3 on the rating scale below.)

Ratina Scale:

1. No undue stress

2. Some undue stress inappropriate stress was present that could have been practically-avoided but would not likely affect an individual's examination-performance.

3. Significant ' undue stress

. Inappropriate stress _was present that could have been practically avoided and it would likely affect _an individual's examination performance.

Examination feedback Ratinas: Please use the rating scale described on the preceding page to indicate your judgment of the degree of undue stress that was present in each aspect of the examination identified below. Write-the number (1, 2, or 3) in the space preceding the section.

[gmments: Please comment about the source or cause of any undue stress, including who was affected (e.g., examinees,ional examiners) sheets and if suggested practical solutions. Attach addit necessary.

Preexamination Interactions with NRC Comments: I i

Written examination: Administrative Controls / Procedural Limits Comments: }

?

Written examination: Plant and Control Systems ,

Comments: ,

[

r Dynamic Simulator Comments:

Job Performance Measures a

Comments:

1 Please comment ,on any practices which you believed were successful in reducing -

1 Jundue stress.

i Your cooperation in completing this form is appreciated.

't

,p ,E r e-- e r--t n c=-e e - - w ak h 5 e --~te, w--.-= w w ww -s eve---m e E w e e e - - -- w y n- E e 4, --**-e--*--ev--e--* v -e E- n w -w += -- +-[=wm E -:w-* =--e-[w Y- o , -r b , *-- ' r -

.o.

1 i

[7590-01) l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i i

l Documents Containing-Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements:  !

L Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review ,

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (HRC)

ACTION: Hotice of the OMB review of information collection.

SUMMARY

The NRC has recently submitted to the OMB for review the following-proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of  :

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

r

1. Type of submission, new, revision, or' extension: 1 Revision-(Expedited Review - OMB approval is1 requested within 3-0 days of receipt of the " Request for_0MB Review").

2.- The title-of the information collection: x Requalification Examination-Feedback Form. .

3. The form number if applicable:- Not applica'ble

4. How often the. collection is required: -

Once' per year :at' each power reactor facilityrduring the NRC-

= conducted requalification examination. >

l

- e __

,_s l.--

.u~._ m. a . _. . ~.u . .._ _ .. a _ a . ...._.._--...u.-.w_.____

m._,.._,2.,._

~_ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ - _ _ _ - , . . _ _ _ . _ _ .

L 2-I

5. Who will be required or asked to report:

(

All operators, evaluators, and facility-licensee representatives (including facility licensee managers) participating in the NRC-requalification examination at a ,

power reactor will be asked to report on a voluntary hssis.

-l

6. An estimate of the number of annual responses:

Approximately 675 facility personnel consisting of 450 operators, 175 facility representatives and evaluators, and j 50 facility managers.

7. An estimate of average burden per' response:

Approximately 30 minutes.

8h An estimate of the tetal number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: Approximately 340 hours0.00394 days <br />0.0944 hours <br />5.621693e-4 weeks <br />1.2937e-4 months <br /> (30 minutes per questionnaire x 675 personnel).

i

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

• L applies: Not applicable.- t l

.3 y-

-$ m Y .. _. _ . . __ . . . . . - __ ._ .._;__,, -

10. Abstract: Industry is concerned that failure to pass requalification examinations may be a result of high levels of stress experienced by the operatnrs rather than a lack of knowledge. In SECY-91-391, "Results of the Study of Requalification Examination Stress," the U.S. NRC staff evaluated the issue of undue examination stress and reported its findings and planned actions. The Operator Licensing -

Branch of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Negulation, U.S.

NRC, will monitor the success of the actions put in place to reduce undue examination stress through the use of the requested requalification examination feedback form.

Copies of the submittal my be inspected or obtained for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555-000).

Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer:

o Ronald Minsk Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0159)

NE0B-3019 Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC 20503 Couments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3084.

I m _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ ____ _ _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _

a i

l The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 492-8132.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this pg dayofdw. 1992.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission pQY A>yW George DT. Messen(er, ActMg Designated Senior Official for Information Resources Management

(

I-e

, . . , - _ , . - - , . . _ , _ _ -,---; -_c_,_ - . _ , _ _ . . . - , , _ . ..