ML20195G597
| ML20195G597 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/22/1998 |
| From: | Halman E NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Roe J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E260 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR19868, RULE-PR-55 AF62-2, AF62-2-007, AF62-2-7, NUDOCS 9906160112 | |
| Download: ML20195G597 (65) | |
Text
h 5 * "' % Mls7. -7.
p* 2*, UNITED STATES
- j
'f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION PDA WASHINGTON, D.c. 20555-0001
% 6 4,,,,,4 May 22, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: Jack W. Roe, Acting Director Division of Reactor Program Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM: Edward L. Halman. Dir r Office of Administrat' n
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE TO AMEND PART 55, " INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS" The Office of Administration has reviewed and concurs in the draft final rule that will amend Part 55 to require power reactor facility licensees to prepare and administer the initial operator and senior operator licensing examinations. Attached is a marked-up copy of the draft rulemaking package that contains our comments.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this review, please contact David L. Meyer, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, at 415-7162 (DLM1).
l
Attachment:
As stated
)
9906160112 990608 PDR PR I
55 64FR19068 PDR k $0G lUC ) } h
l l
l EQB: The Commissioners FROM: L. Joseph Callan I Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE - REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIAL OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS ;
PURPOSE:
To obtain Commission approval to publish a final amendment to 10 CFR Part 55 dealing with the preparation of operator licensing examinations by facility licensees. I BACKGROUND-
]
On March 24,1995, the staff informed the Comrkission of i intent to revise the operator ;
licensing program to allow greater participation by facility f nsees and to eliminate contractor ;
assistance in this area (SECY-95-075, " Proposed hang s to the NRC Operator Licensing Program"). In a staff requirements memorandum M) ofApril 18,1995, the Commission approved the staff's proposal to initiate __a transition ocess to revise the operator licensing j program and directed the staff tofcautuSconsid f xperience from pilot examinations before fully implementing the changes. On August 15,1995, the NRC staff issued Generic Letter (GL) 95-06, " Changes in the Operator Licensing Program," outlining the revised proces.s for developing examinations, and soliciting volunteers to participate in pilot examinations to evaluate and refine the methodology. gj Between October 1,1995, and April 5,1906, the NRC staff dm!nistered 22 operator licensing examinations using the revised process. The staff docume ed the results of the pilot examinations in SECY-96-123, " Proposed Changes to the RC Operator Licensing Program,"
and briefed the Commission on June 18,1996. In an SRM uly 23,1996, the Commission directed the staff to prepare a rulemaking plan to ' the changes to 10 CFR Part 55 and to present additional information on a number of is: ues related to the revised examination process. The SRM also authorized the staff to continue the pilot program on a voluntary basis pending a final Commission decision on the revi sed examination process.
I CONTACT:
301-415-1031
p l
l L .The Commissioners J/c)
On Septeinber 25,1996, the NRC st issued SECY-96-206, " ulemaking Plan for
- Amendments to 10 CFR Past 55 To Change Licensed Operat xamination Requirements."
l Upon Commission approval of the ru making plan in an SRM cember 17,1996, the staff prepared,Mm&r fnn SRMthe proposed une 26,1997,rulemaking and published (inECY-97-79, dated April 8,1 the' Federal Register l modify l
on AugCst 7,1997 (62 FR 42426). When the comment period expired on October 21, :1997,11
, comment letters had been received and 2 more rrived after the expiration date. The IW l comments 5 :" # letters aro.ewmmad . and NRC's responses are Qin the
! Statement'of^ Consideration d -
4c/the[inalfle (EnclosureAwa%4 2).
DISENSION: '
l From the time the pilot program began in October 1995 through the end of September 1997, the NRC staff reviewed, approved, and administered a total of 68 examinations that were voluntarily developed by facility licensees in accordance with the NRC's examination criteria and guidance.
- Facility licensees prepared the written examinations and the operating tests, proctored the written examinations, and graded the written examinations using the guidance provided by the i NRC in GL 95-06 during the early stages of the pilot program, and subsequently in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors."
L NRC examiners thoroughly reviewed the examinations and tests to determine if they were l' l consistent with NRC standards, directed facility licensees to make whatever changes were necessary to achieve NRC standards, and approved the examinations and tests before they -
were administered. NRC examiners iWndently administered all of the operating tests, l reviewed theNritten examinatiorffrading(Vnd made the final licensing recommendations for l approval by NRC management pursuant to 10 CFR 55.51, 1
x as nial: 4 a.i Ly nc 4%*J w'e>
l .The revised examination process 4nakes the operator licensing program more consistent with
, the NRC's other oversight programs because it requires NRC examiners to review materials prepared by tbsTacility licensees and holds th8 facility licensees responsible for the quality of
- those materials. The revised process has enabled NRC examiners to focus more on the l psychometric quality of the examinations (e.g., the cognitive level at which the questions are j written and the plausibility of the distractors or wrong answer choices) prepared by the facility j licensees than on the technical accuracy of the examinations, which was their primary focus l l when the examinations were prepared by the NRC. This shift in the NRC examiners' focus, which is made possible by the revised examination development process, has the potential to j improve the overall quality of the licensing examinations. j J The NRCheviemg f the 68 examinations at the quality of the licensee-proposed examinations varied widely; essentially all of the proposed examinations required some !
changes and many needed significant changes to achieve NRC standards for quality and level l of difficulty. In some cases, the examinations were delayed for a period of time in order for the NRC steff to evaluate the examinations and review the facility license & changes. Feedback ;
from the NRC examiners who were involved with the pilot examinations indicates that the l facility-prepared examinations that were finally approved by the NRC were comparable, in l terms of quality and level of difficulty, to examinations prepared by the NRC before and since i
i i
l
l L
The Commissioners beginning the pilot program. Although the staff expected that the quality of the proposed examinations would improve as the industry became familiar with NRC examination criteria and i
expectationsjand gained experience in preparing the examinations, some of the proposed X examinations continue to require more changes than anticipated. The staffs expectations regarding the quality and level of difficulty of the proposed examinations have not yet been achieved. (Enclosure 1 provides a discussion of this issue and actions that are being taken to address it.) -
The average passing rates for reactor operators (ROs) and senior reactor operators (SROs) on both the written and operating portions of the 68 facility-prepared examinations administered through the end of fiscal year (FY) 1997 were somewhat lower than the corresponding passing rates on the examinations administered during FY 1995, the last year in which all of the ,
examinations were prepared by the NRC or its contractors. However, the average passing i rates were not significantly below the range of passing rates for FYs 1990 through 1994. This i supports the NRC staffs conclusion that the facility-prepared examinations, revised as directed j by the NRC, are effective. The examinations are discriminating at a conservative and !
acceptable level (i.e., the average level of difficulty has not declined). (Enclosure 1 includes a detailed summary and analysis of the examination results.)
With regard to the efficiency of the revised examination process, the pilot examination experience to date suggests that the average industry cost will not be significantly different from I what it was when the NRC prepared all of the licensing examinations. Feedback from the industry reflects that the cost for some facility licensees was higher than it was for an NRC-prepared examination; other licensees, however, were able to prepare acceptable quality examinations at a lower cost than if the examinations had been prepared by the NRC. The industry generally attributed the higher cost to the revised examination and administrative criteria under the pilot examination process. Although the NRC staff acknowledges that the revised criteria contribute to the elevated cost, many of the variables that affect the final cost of the examination (e.g., its initial quality) are now under the control of facility licensees. Those facility licensees that submit acceptable quality examinations are likely to save resources despite the additional administrative criteria that the NRC considers necessary under the revised examination process. However, those facility licensees that submit examinations that require many changes because they do not meet NRC standards, may have increased costs.
The higher cost of revising a lowpuality examination should provide nn incentive for facility X licensees to submit acceptable glality examinations. (Enclosure 3 provides an analysis of the industry resource burden.)
Comments from the NRC chief examiners who worked on the pilot examinations indicate that the average amount of time spent reviewing and revising the facility-prepared examinations was generally consistent with the estimates developed before starting the pilot program. ' Although it took longer than expected to revise a number of the examinations to meet NRC standards for quality, the resource burden was generally offset by other examinations that required less effort to review and revise. Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that the original objective of the pilot examination and transition program has been achieved. The program has demonstrated that the NRC can eliminate the use of contractors in the operator licensing program (except for the generic fundamentals examination) and can conduct the initial operator licensing and I
- ~ h l r l 4 j The Commissioners requalification inspection programs with the existing NRC staff. (Enclosures 1 and 3 provide an i analysis of the NRC resource burden.)
!- i
. As discussed in SECY-96-206 and the proposed rulemaking, the NRC staff is focusmg additional attention on examination security. Therefore, the staff has amended 10 CFR 55.49 in F
of the regulation and to require facility licensees to establish procedu the[ihten
.and examination security and integrity. The staff has also strengthened the discussion of examination security in final Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 and modified NUREG-1600, " General
- Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," to address enforcement action relative to the requirements in 10 CFR 55.49. As a separate action, the NRC will delay
- any examination that may have been compromised until the scope of the potential compromise I l is determined and measures can be taken to address the integrity and validity of the examination.
In summary, the NRC staff has concluded that the revised examination process is both effective and efficient. The staff has reviewed the vulnerabilities discussed in SECY-96-206 (i.e., quality and consistency; independence and public perception; examination security; NRC resources; program stability; and examiner proficiency) and evaluated the measures that have been taken j to mitigate the vulnerabilities. (Enclosure 1 includes a summary analysis of each vulnerability l and the potential effects on reactor safety.) The revised program provides the staff the ability to maintain acceptable standards of performance in each of these areas, and the pilot program has demonstrated that it is capable of doing so. NRC license examiners will continue to review each examination to ensure that it conforms to the guidelines in NUREG-1021 regarding ;
content, format, quality, and levels of knowledge and difficulty. The NRC will direct facility licensees to revise the examinations, as necessary, and will approve every examination before it is given. The NRC will delay those examinations that do not meet NRC standards by the scheduled administration date and, to the extent that facility employees do not follow the examination criteria in NUREG-1021, address deficiencies in the submitted examinations as l licensee performance issues. Moreover, NRC examiners will directly observe and evaluate the performance of every license applicant on both the dynamic simulator and walk-through portions of the operating test. The staff believes that this will improve the NRC's ability to focus on operator performance issues and enable NRC examiners to accrue more experience in a shorter period of time. 1 COORDINATION I J
The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has no legal objection to this final rule. As discussed i in the FederaIRegister notice (Enclosure 2), OGC has determined that the backfit rule (10 CFR !
50.109) does not apply. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission paper for resource impacts and has no objections. This final rule has also been reviewed by !
the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) and the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). l l
f, I
j
b The Commissioners BESQURCES-This action has allowed the staff to discontinue the use of contractor support for the development and administration of site-specific initial operator licensing examinations. Before initiating the pilot examination and transition process at the beginning of Fiscal Year (FY) 1996, the NRC spent approximately $3 million per year on contractor assistance for initial examinations and requalification inspections. During FY 1996, when approximately 40 percent of the examinations were voluntarily prepared by facility licensees, the NRC spent
' approximately $1.6 million for contractor assistance (to prepare and administer initial examinations and assist with requalification inspections). In FY 1997, facility participation increased to include approximately 75 percent of the examinations, and the NRC's spending on contractor assistance for the licensing examinations and requalification inspections decreased to approximately $0.5 million.
The FY 1998 and FY 1999 budgets are consistent with this proposal and reflect the elimination of contractor support for the operator licensing program (with the exception of the generic
' fundamentals examination), if the Commission decides not to amend 10 CFR Part 55 as recommended by the NRC staff, other measures will be needed to ensure that the facility , . x licensees' requirements for licensed operators are satisfied. Such measures 'might include (1) w examination length or format changes that will enable the existing staff to conduct the examination and inspection programs](2) scheduling the examinations based on the NRC X resources available (which may require the staff to prioritize its activities based on the facility licensees' needs)f(3) an increase in direct examiner resources in each regional office to satisfy ^
. the demand for initial licensing examinations;pr (4) the restoration of contractor support for the operator licensing program.
RECOMMENDATIONS-Ql and That the Commission
- 1. Approve the notice of final rulemaking (Enclosure 2) for publication in the Federal Register.
- 2. Cattify that this rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,5 U.S.C. 605(b).
- 3. Determine that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this rule.
- 4. Determine that neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared because this proposed rule is eligible for a categorical exclusion as defined in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1).
The Commissioners 5. No.ta that
- a. ' The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of the certification regarding economic impact on small entities and the reasons for it as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
- b. The final rule contains information collection requirements that have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
- c. A regulatory analysis has been prepared (Enclosure 3).
]
- d. A revision to the enforcement policy is being prepared and will be issued separately.
- e. This is not a " major" rule as defined in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Faimess Act of 1996,5 U.S.C. 804(2).
- f. The appropriate Congressional committees will be informed (Enclosure 4).
- g. A public announcement will be issued when the final rulemaking is filed with the Office of the Federal Register (Enclosure 5).
I
- h. Copies of the notice of final rulemaking and final Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, t
" Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," will be distributed to all facility licensees.
L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated (5) i I
l l
4
q l
- The Commissioners 5. Ngia that .
l- a. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be l informed of the certification regarding economic impact on small entities and the reasons for it as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
l-l- b. The final rule contains information collection requirements that have been j reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
- c. A regulatory analysis has been prepared (Enclosure 3).
! d .' A revision to the enforcement policy is being prepared and will be issued separately, l
e.' This is not a " major" rule as defined in the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,5 U.S.C. 804(2).
- j. f. The appropriate Congressional committees will be informed (Enclosure'4),
- g. A public announcement will be issued when the final rulemaking is filed with the l Office of the Federal Register (Enclosure 5).
i
' h. Copies of the notice of final rulemaking and final Revision 8'of NUREG-1021, '
" Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," will be l distributed to all facility licensees. ,
t L
t
! L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
As stated (5)
DISTRIBUTION:
Commissioners OGC OPA OlG ClO EDO ACRS OCCA- OCA CFO SECY REGIONS
' To feceive e top ' of this document, inslicale in the box: "C" a Copy w/o attechmentenclosure 'T's Copy w/ ettechment/ enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE - NMSS l OGC l OE l ADM l OCFO l NAME- CJ Paperieto JR Gray J Lieberman DL Meyer JL Funches DATE / /98 / /98 / /98 / /98 / /98 OFFICE OClO l NRR l EDO l l- l NAME sJ Shelton S Colhns LJ Callan DATE / /98 / /98 / /98 / /98 / /98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY L...
I l
/
T - '
_A i ,,
Enclosure 2 -
i i
Federal Register Notice (including Statement of Consideration) ,
1
[7590-01-P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
10 CFR Part 55 RIN 3150-AF62
/
Initial Licensed Operator Examination Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
l
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to require all nuclear power facility licensees to prepare, proctor, and grade the written examinations and prepare the operating tests that the NRC uses to evaluate the competence of individuals j applying for operator licenses at those plants. The amendment requires facility licensees to submit, upon approval by an authorized representative of the facility licensee, each examination I and test to the NRC for review and approval. The amendment preserves the NRC's authority to prepare the examinations and tests, as necessary, if the NRC has reason to question a facility licensee's ability to prepare adequate examinations. In addition, the NRC will periodically 1
invoke this authority in order to maintain the proficiency of its own license examiners. The Commission is concemed with examination integrity; therefore,10 CFR Part 55.49 has been amended to clarify the Commission's intent that facility licensees establish procedures to control examination security and integrity.
l i
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on (insert the date 180 days from date of l
l
- T 2
publication in the Federal Register).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Siegfried Guenther, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone:
~ 301-415-1056; e-mail: sxg@nrc. gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, requires the NRC to determine the qualifications of individuals applying for an operator's license, to prescribe
%ss uniform conditions for licensing Qindividuals and to_ issue licenses as appropriate. Pursuant .
to the AEA,10 CFR Part 55 requires [applicantkor rato oconse o pass an examination that satisfies the basic content requirements specified in the regulation. Although neither the AEA nor Part 55 specifies who must prepare, proctor, or grade these examinations, the NRC has traditionally performed those tasks itself or through its contract examiners. The NRC and its contract examiners have used the guidance in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," once titled " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards," to prepare the initial operator licensing examinations. This document has been revised as experience has been acquired in preparing the examinations. The current version is designated Revision 8.'
1 Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) at 2120 L Street NW, Washington, DC 20555-0001; the PDR's mailing address is
l l
3 in accordance with 10 CFR 170.12 (i), the NRC's staff and contractual costs are recovered from facility licensees that receive examination services. In Fiscal Year (FY) 1995, the NRC spent approximately $3 million on contractor support for the preparation and
. administration of the initial operator licensing examinations and for support of requalification program inspections. On March 24,1995, in SECY-95-075, " Proposed Changes to the NRC Operator Licensing Program," the staff advised the Commission of its intent to eliminate the use of contractors by allowing facility licensees to prepare the examinations.
On April 18,1995, the Cor.s 'ission approved the NRC staffs proposal to initiate a transition process to revise the operator licensing program and directed the NRC staff to ts !
carefully mnside experience from pilot examinations before fully implementing the changes.
On August 15,1995, the NRC issued Generic Letter (GL) 95-06, " Changes in the Operator Licensing Program,"' outlining the revised examination development process and soliciting volunteers to participate in pilot examinations to evaluate and refine the methodology.
Between October 1,1995, and April 5,1996, the NRC reviewed and approved 22 operator licensing examinations, including both the written examinations and the operating tests, prepared by facility licensees as part of a pilot program. These examinations were prepared using the guidance in Revision 7 (Supplement 1) of NUREG-1021' and the additional guidance in GL 95-06.
The results of the pilot examinations were discussed in SECY-96-123, " Proposed i Changes to the NRC Operator Licensing Program," dated June 10,1996. Based on the results )
of the pilot program, the NRC staff recommended that the Commission approve the Mail Stop LL-6; telephone is 202-634-3273; fax is 202-634-3343. Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 is '
also available for downloading from the intemet at http://www.nrc. gov for a limited period of time.
i 4
l.
l implementation of the new examination process on a voluntary basis until rulemaking could be completed to require all power reactor facility licensees to prepare the entire initial operator
. licensing examination and to proctor and grade the written portion of the examination.
Y23,1996, the Commission authorized the staff to contmue the pilot examination process on a voluntary basis and directed the staff to develop a rulemaking plan to justify the changes that would be necessary to 10 CFR Part 55. The Commission also directed the staff to address a number of additional items (e.g., pros, cons, and vulnerabilities) regarding the revised examination process to facilitate a Commission decision on whether to implement the revised I
process on an industrywide basis. I I
With Commission approval, the NRC staff resumed conducting pilot-style examinations l
on August 19,1996, and by the end of FY 1997 had reviewed, approved, and administered 42 additional examinations that were developed by facility licensees. This raised the total number of examination'; completed using the pilot process to 68.
On September 25,1996, the NRC staff forwarded the rulemaking plan and a response i
. to the additional items to the Commission in SECY-96-206, "Rulemaking Plan for Amendments !
to' 10 CFR Part 55 to Change Licensed Operator Examination Requirements." SECY-96-206 l addressed a number of areas (i.e., quality and consistency, independence and public perception, examination security, NRC resources, program stability, and examiner proficiency) in which the NRC could be more vulnerable under the revised examination process and the measures that the NRC has taken to manage the vulnerabilities. On December 17,1996, the l
!- Commission directed the staff to proceed with the proposed rulemaking. The staff forwarded l
the proposed rule (SECY-97-079, " Proposed Rulo - Initial Licensed Operator Examination '
Requirements") to the Commission on April 8,1997, and on June 26,1997, the Commission i approved publication of the proposed rule for a 75-day comment period. The proposed rule
I~
l 5-was published in the Federal Register (62 FR 42426) on August 7,1997, and, when the public comment period expired on October 21,1997,~ 11 comment letters had been received. Two additional comment letters arrived after the expiration date but were also considered in the development of the final rulemaking.
Discussion i
j The pilot examinations demonstrated that the revised process, under which facility !
licensees prepare the written examinations and operating tests, is generally effective and i
efficient. From the time the pilot program began in October 1995 through the end of September 1997, the NRC staff reviewed, approved, and administered a total of 68 examinations that were l voluntarily developed by facility licensees under the pilot examination and transition program.
l Facility licensees prepared the written examinations and the operating tests, proctored the written examinations, and graded the written examinations using the guidance provided by the NRC in GL 95-06 during the early stages of the pilot program, and subsequently in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors."
NRC examiners thoroughly reviewed the examinations and tests to determine if they were consistent with NRC standards, directed facility licensees to make whatever changes were necessary to achieve NRC standards if the submittea examinations and tests were deficient, and approved the examinations and tests before they were administered. NRC examiners independently administered all of the operating tests, reviewed the written examination grading, and made the final licensing recommen'dations for approval by NRC management.
Comments from the NRC chief examiners who evaluated the pilot examinations indicate that the quality and level of difficulty of the licensee-prepared examinations (when modified as l
l L
o 6
directed by the NRC) are generally comparable to the examinations prepared by the NRC (i.e.,
by the staff or NRC contractors). The passing rate on the 68 pilot-style examinations administered through the end of FY 1997 was only slightly lower than the passing rate on the power reactor licensing examinations administered during FY 1995, the last year in which all examinations were prepared by the NRC. However, considering the historical fluctuation in the average examination passing rates and the other factors (e.g., training program quality and screening of applicants by facility licensees) that could be responsible for some or all of the observed difference, the Commission has concluded that the observed change in the passing rates is not significant. The average grades on the facility-prepared, NHC-approved written I
examinations were also comparable if slightly lower than the grades on examinations prepared !
i by the NRC during FY 1995. These data support the conclusion that the facility-prepared examinations are discriminating at a conservative and acceptable level and that the revised j examination process is effective. Therefo<e, the fact that the facility licensees are preparing the examinations with NRC review and approval, should have no negative effect on the safe !
operation of the plants.
Although the NRC-approved examinations were comparable to NRC-prepared ;
examinations, essentially all of the examinations prepared by facility licensees required some
]
changes subsequent to NRC review, and many of the examinations required significant rework. !
The NRC had originally believed that, with training and experience, the industry would quickly gain proficiency in preparing the examinations, but the overall quality of the examinations submitted to the NRC during the pilot program did not improve as expected over time. Although approximately half of the 17 facility licensees that had prepared more than one examination by
- the end of FY 1997 did maintain or improve the quality of their second or third examination <
submittals, the quality of the other facility licensees'second or third examinations was lower.
l
7 Consequently, the NRC has asked the industry to address the issue of examination quality and I
determine the need for additional training on examination development. The NRC will continue y
' to (1) direct facility licensees to revise the examinations as necessary to achieve an acceptable .X 4
level of quality and discriminationj(2) delay those examinations that do not meet NRC k standards by the scheduled administration datej (3) oversee the regional implementation of the x operator liconsing process to ensure consistencyj,(4) address significant deficiencies in the 9 submitted examinations as licensee performance issues in the examination reports, as appropriate; hnd (5) conduct or participate in workshops, as necessary, to ensure that faci licensees understand the NRC's examination criteria.
With regard to the efficiency of the revised examination process, the pilot examination experience to date supports the conclusion that the average industry cost will not differ significantly from the cost of NRC-prepared examinations. Comments from the industry reflect that the cost for some facility licensees to prepare the examinations was higher than it was for l
NRC-prepared examinations; however, other licensees prepared good quality examinations at lower cost than the NRC. The industry generally attributed the higher cost to the revised i I
examination and administrative criteria under the pilot examination process. Although the NRC l acknowledges that the revised criteria contribute somewhat to the elevated cost, many of the variables that affect the quality and, consequently, the cost of the examination will be under the facility licensees' control and can present an opportunity for cost savings. For example, facility j
licensees will be able to manage the size and quality of their examination banks and the training l
' and experience of the personnel they select to write their licensing examinations. The revised 1
examination process puts facility licensees in control of developing the examinations and holds them responsible for their quality, if a facility licensee submits a good quality examination, it is i likely to save resources despite the additional administrative criteria; however, if the facility
8 licensee submits an examination that requires many changes, it will likely cost more than if the NRC had prepared the examination.
l- Comments from the NRC chief examiners who worked on the pilot examinations indicate that the average amount of time spent reviewing and revising the facility-prepared examinations was generally consistent with the estimates developed before starting the pilot program. Although a number (approximately 20 percent in FY 1997) of the examinations I required significantly more NRC effort than originally anticipated to bring them up to the NRC's standards, the resource burden was generally offset by other examinations that required less effort to review and revise. Therefore, the Commission believes that the original objective of I
the pilot examination and transition program has been achieved. The program has demonstrated that the NRC can eliminate its use of contractors in the operator licensing program (except for the generic fundamentals examination) and can conduct the initial operator licensing and requalification inspection programs with the existing NRC staff.
With regard to examination security, applicants, licensees (operators) and facility licensees, are reminded that 10 CFR 55.49 prohibits them from engaging in any activity that 1
compromises the integrity of any application, tests, or examination required by 10 CFR 55. The '
Commission considers an examination te bo " compromised" if any activity occurs that could l
l' affect the equitable and consistent administration of the examination, regardless of whether the
(
activity takes place before, during, or after the examination is administered. Based on several !
l security incidents that occurred since beginning the pilot examination program, the NRC has concluded that applicants, licensees, and facility licensees may not understand that the !
i provisions of 10 CFR 55.49 pertain to more than just those activities involving the physical administration of an examination. Therefore, the Commission has determined that it would be beneficial to amend 10 CFR 55.49 in the final rule to@stateh =p=% that facility
F l -
Ef55 3
g
- )g nesfh wod
- I' N # "
4 g .(Acifi % f M ac " J -
- Qrt3tstNeb licenseesFestablish procedures to control examination security and integrity. Revision 8 of N NUREG-1021 identifies a number of security provisions that facility licensees should consider when establishing their procedures.
Consistent with NUREG-1021, facility employees with specific knowledge of any NRC ,
examination before it is given may not communicate the examination contents to unauthorized
~
individuals and may not participate in any further instruction of the students scheduled to take the examination. Before they are given access to the examinationh facility employees are 4 expected to sign a statement acknowledging their understanding of the restrictions and the potential consequences of noncompliance. When the examinations are complete, the same
)
employees are expected to sign a post-examination statement certifying that they have not j knowingly compromised the examination, in addition to the restrictions on personnel, NUREG-1021 also discusses a number of physical security precautions, including simulator considerations and protecting and mailing the examination materials.
NRC examiners are expected to be attentive to examination security measures, to review the security expectations with the facility licensee at the time the examination arrangements are confirmed, and to report any security concems to NRC management. If the NRC determines during its preparation that an examination may have been compromised, it will delay the examination until the scope of the potential compromise is determined and measures can be taken to address the integrity and validity of the examination. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.51, the NRC must make a determination prior to issuing a license that the test or examination is valid, meeting the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's ,
regulations. If the compromise is discovered after the examination has been administered, the NRC will delay the licensing action for the affected applicants until the staff can make a i
determination regarding the validity of the examination. If the compromise is not discovered j i
l l
I j
i 10
, until after the licensing action is complete, the NRC will reevaluate the licensing decision, if it I
determines that the original licensing decision was based on an invalid examination, and take appropriate action pursuant to 10 CFR 55.61(b)(2).
As a separate measure, the NRC will evaluate every potential examination compromise to determine if a violation of 10 CFR 55.49 has occurred. The Commission is modifying NUREG-1600, " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
(Enforcement Policy) to cover instances where a compromise occurs but measures are taken to remedy the situation that created the compromise before the extmination'is administered. A compromise that is discovered after an examination is given would be considered a significant regulatory concern and categorized at least at Severity Level ll1. The NRC intends to utilize its full enforcement authority including, as warranted, civil penalties and orders against persons )
.J who (1) compromised examination integrity in violation of 10 CFR 55.49;(2) committed X deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5; or (3) provided incomplete or inaccurate x information to the NRC in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. In addition, cases involving willful violations will be referred to the Department of Justice.
The Commission has reviewed the vulnerabilities and costs associated with the revised examination process and considered the measures that the NRC staff has taken to mitigate the vulnerabilities. With regard to examination quality and level of difficulty, the Commission acknowledges that the effectiveness of the revised examination process is contingent on the i NRC stafra review of the facility-proposed examinations to ensure that NRC standards are ,
achieved. The Commission has concluded, based on the results of the pilot examination )
program, that the controls implemented by the NRC staff will provide reasonable assurance that !
i the examinations that are administered to the license applicants will provide a valid and consistent basis upon which to make the licensing decisions. The Commission also realizes !
B I
11 -
that the frequency of examination security incidents and the risk of undetected compromises
. may increase. However, the Commission is confident that the compensatory measures
. discussed above will sufficiently control the vulnerability in this area. The Commission is aware l
that the staffs original expectation that facility licensees would eventually realize cost savings under the revised process as they gain proficiency in preparing the examinations has not yet
' been realized. However, the Commission has concluded that neither the increased vulnerabilities nor the absence of clear industry cost benefit provides sufficient basis for discontinuing the revised examination process. 'The Commission also finds that the revised examination process is more consistent with the NRC's other oversight programs because it requires NRC examiners to review materials prepared bbfacility licensees. The revised %
process enables NRC examiners to focus more on the psychometric quality of examinations (e.g., the cognitive level at which the questions are written and the plausibility of the distractors or wrong answer choices) prepared by the facility licensees than on the technical accuracy of the examinations, which was their primary focus when the examinations were prepared by NRC contractors. This shift in the NRC examiners' focus, which is made possible by the revised examination development process, has the potential to improve the overall quality of the licensing examinations.
Summary of Public Comments The 75-day public comment period began when the notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federa/ Register (62 FR 42426) on August 7,1997, and closed on October 21,
, 1997. The notice (FRN) requested public comment on the proposed rule, on the !
l
[-
l l
I i
I
[
12 implementation guidance in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, and on the following two ,
l questions:
- 1. Are there portions of the operator exams that are common to all licensees, and would, therefore, be more efficiently developed by the NRC7 i
- 2. Is the conclusion in the regulatory analysis correct that it would be less costly for 'j each licensee to prepare its own initial operator examinations to be reviewed, revised, and administered by the NRC, than to have one NRC contractor prepare these exams for all licensed operators with the costs to be reimbursed by licensee fees?
)
The NRC received 13 comment letters on the proposed rule; two of the letters arrived after the comment period closed, but they were considered nonetheless. The respondents included three NRC examiners, one contract examiner, five nuclear utilities and one utility employee, one nonpower reactor facility licensee, the State of Illinois, and the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), which submitted its comments on behalf of the nuclear power industry. Copies of the public comrnents are available in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, NW .
1 (Lower Level), Washington, DC, and on the intemet at "http://ruleforum.lln!. gov /cgi-bin /
rulemake? source =OE_ PRULE".
Seven of the respondents (three NRC examiners, one contract examiner, one utility employee, one nonpower facility licensee, and the State of Illinois) recommended that the rule '
change be disapproved. Five of the industry respondents (NEl and four utilities) supported the rule change; however, one utility endorsed NEl's comments but stated that it did not agree with the proposed rule in its present form. NEl and two of the utilities stated that they would rather continue with a voluntary program, but they would support mandatory participation with the rule change rather than retum to the previous process under which NRC contractors wrote most of the examinations.
i 13 Those comments related to the two specific questions raised in the proposed rulemaking, and those that have a direct bearing on the rule are discussed below. The rada soMy sdj comments are categorized as they relate to the vulnerabilities discussed in SECY-96-206 (i.e.,
quality and consistency; independence and public perception; security; NRC resources;and W _ _
URC mefveb examiner proficiency)[and reactor safety; there were]no comments related to program stability.
'One NRC examiner, NEl, four of the utilities, and the utility employee also provided specific comments and recommendations regarding the implementation guidance in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021. Those comments are addressed in Enclosure 1 of the ' I l
Commission (SECY) paper associated with this rulemaking. A copy of the SECY is available in '
the NRC Public Document Room, on the intemet at http://www.nrc. gov, or from Siegfried Guenther, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at 301- j i
415-1056 or e-mail at sxg@nrc. gov.
Comment: With regard to the first specific question included in the proposed rulemaking,2 of the 13 respondents (NEl and one utility) stated that all of the common material is already included in the generic fundamentals examination (GFE) and that the remaining elements are best covered as part of the site-specific examination.
Bangonan it appears that the current allocation of topics between the GFE and site-specific written examinations is generally perceived to be an efficient method of covering the topics required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.43. Therefore, the Commission finds no basis for changing the process to have the NRC separately develop portions of the initial examination that would be common to all facilities.
Comment: Seven of the 13 respondents (NEl, two utilities, a utility employee, and three
14 examiners) directly or indirectly addressed the second specific question in their letters. NEl and one utility stated that the revised examination criteria in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 have increased the level of effort and will result in higher licensing fees regardless of who ]
prepares the examinations. However, NEl and another utility agreed that comparing the cost of utility-prepared examinations to those prepared by the NRC is difficult, but they concluded that it should be less costly for utilities to prepare the examinations than to have the NRC prepare them under the same criteria.
NEl also stated that the relative cost of the two examination processes should not be the only factor in deciding whether to proceed with the rulemaking. NEl indicated that preparing higher cognitive level questions requires detailed plant knowledge, better provided by facility licensees, and that the revised process (which has eliminated the use of NRC contractors to administer the operating tests) will allow NRC staff to evaluate each applicant without relying on third-party observers.
Two NRC examiners, one contract examiner, and a utility employee asserted that the inc reecet
' facility licensees' cost has under the revised examination process. They cited various X reasons for the increased cost, including training personnel to write the examinations and then restricting them from training the applicants, and upgrading equipment to maintain examination security. The NRC examiners based their comments on feedback from facility training personnel; one examiner indicated that it took facility licensees an average of 700 hours0.0081 days <br />0.194 hours <br />0.00116 weeks <br />2.6635e-4 months <br /> to prepare each examination. The utility employee stated that the rule change will simply transfer the cost of contractors from the NRC to the utilities.
Response
- The NRC acknowledges that the pilot examination administrative criteria in particular (e.g., the restrictions on facility training personnel and the need to document the source of the test items) have probably caused the cost of preparing the examinations to be
l l
15 somewhat higher than it would have been if facility licensees had been allowed to prepare the examinations using the same criteria that applied to the NRC and its contractors before starting the pilot program. However, when the NRC first developed the revised examination process, ,
I with its additional administrative criteria, the NRC still believed that the cost for facility licensees to prepare the examinations would be offset by the reduction in the licensing fees and that a cost savings could be realized as facility licensees gained experience with the process. Many ;
of the facility licensees that participated in the pilot program demonstrated that it is possible to prepare a good quality examination at the same or lower cost than the NRC or its contractors could prepare a comparable examination. The fact that a number of facility licensees did not prepare acceptable examinations may be as much an indication of the licensees' inefficiency and inexperience as it is a symptom of deficiencies in the examination criteria. Those facility licensees that did not initially submit acceptable examinations, eventually paid more in fees because of the additional effort required for the NRC to review, and the licensees' staffs to rewrite, the examinations. Finally, it is possible that the magnitude of the increase in effort and cost may be perceived to be higher than it actually is because the industry had originally expected to save money if the NRC would have allowed facility licensees to prepare the examinations using the version of NUREG-1021 that was in effect before beginning the pilot program. l Wrth regard to the additional security costs cited by the examiners, the Commission has stressed the importance of maintaining examination security, but the NRC has not required facility licensees to invest in additional physical security systems. However, the frequency of security incidents since beginning the pilot examination program has prompted the NRC to clarify the intent of 10 CFR 55.49 in the final rule and to include additional security guidance in fiv, ><
ve rs:en of fi i nal Revision 8 of NUREG-1021. This action will help ensure, among other things, that facility _ 7 i w
16 licensees understand their responsibility for maintaining control over the examination process.
The pilot examinations demonstrated that some of the people assigned by the facility to develop the examinations did not have sufficient expertise required to prepare good quality examination materials consistent with NRC standards. As noted earlier, the NRC has asked the industry to address the issue of examination quality and the need for additional training on examination development. The NRC acknowledges that the restrictions on the use of instructors to prepare the licensing examinations may be partially responsible for limiting the availability of qualified examination preparers. Therefore, the staff has revised the personnel m wpo *q restrictions in, final7 Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 in an effort to reduce the burden on facility X licensees. Specifically, instructors will be allowed to prepare the written examination questions without regard to the amount of time they spent training the license applicants; however, the instructors will still be precluded from preparing questions related to those topics on which they provided instruction and from instructing the anplicants once they begin working on the licensing examination (as was the case in interim Revision 8). This change should provide licensees with increased flexibility in managing their resources and possibly reduce their costs without adversely affecting the independence of the examination process.
. The NRC has revised the regulatory analysis in response to the public comments and lessons learned from the pilot program. The NRC has also reevaluated the additional administrative criteria in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 and considers them reasonable and essential to mitigate the vulnerabilities (e.g., quality, security, and conflict of interest) of the new examination process and to facilitate the NRC staffs review of the proposed examinations.
Thest cd %ecia nec Ic4nined > %< final v en.e4 of Redsion 8 r( W88&-loII. Kj asucM Comment: Two NRC examiners with pilotexamination experience rMat the v l A J quality of the simulator and walk-through tests has decreased significantly and that, in most l l
l 1
i 17 cases, the quality and difficulty of the submitted examinations have been below NRC standards.
All four examiners cited various reasons why the quality and difficulty of the facility-prepared examinations might be lower than examinations prepared by the NRC or its contract examinersj x including: (1) the facility licensees' tendency to narrow the scope of the operating test to those 1,cpe/es procedures that the facility are important (and emphasized in the training program)and A (2) the belief that most facility training personnel do not have the expertise to develop valid test weked items. Two NRC examinersythat the quality of the examinations has not improved during >'
l l the pilot program and is not likely to improve because there is nothing to prevent licensees from using different people to develop successive examinations. A utility employee asserted that the utilities' limited contact with the process by preparing an examination once every 18 to 24 months will not foster consistency or develop skilled examination writers.
455.erfM Two NRC examiners stated that the elimination of NRC contract examiners who X
& 1 1
participated in examinations across the four NRC regions will be detrimental to examination ,
as ser4 ed.
consistency. One NRC examiner that the guidance in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-
- i 1021 is not sufficiently prescriptive to ensure nationwide consistency in the level of knowledge i tested and the level of difficulty of the examinations and that several specific changes should be included in NUREG-1021 to address his concerns.
The State of Illinois asserted that the quality and consistency of the written examination questions can be maintained because the NRC can change and approve the questions before they are used. However, the State also recommended that the NRC should compile the examination questions and proctor the examinations (refer to the conflict-of-interest discussion below).
According to NEl, the recent facility-prepared examinations were of higher quality than the examinations prepared by the NRC before the pilot program started. Many of the NRC-t
l 18 prepared examinations had to be revised in response to the facility licensees' technical reviews.
Response Essentially all of the facility-prepared examinations required some changes l and many required significant changes to make them conform to the NRC's standards for l
quality and level of difficulty. According to the questionnaires completed by the NRC chief l
j examiners responsible for the pilot examinations, the average facility-prepared written examination required approximately 10 to 20 changes, which is consistent with the number of changes often required on examinations prepared by NRC contract examiners. Most NRC chief examiners judged the final examinatio ith the NRC's changes incorporat b be X l comparable to recent NRC-prepared examinations in terms of quality and level of difficulty.
Moreover, the fact that the passing rate on the facility-prepared examinations is generally l
consistent with the historical passing rate on examinations prepared by the NRC suggests that the NRC-approved examinations have discriminated at an acceptable level and that they have provided an adequate basis for licensing the applicants at those facilities. I Although the NRC expected that the proposed examination quality would improve as l
facility licensees gained experience and familiarity with the NRC's requirements and expectations, the overall quality of examinations submitted to the NRC during the transition process did not improve appreciably over time. Although approximately half of the 17 facility licensees that had prepared more than one examination by the end of FY 1997 did maintain or 1 improve the quality of their second or third examination submittals, the quality of the other
!, facility licensees'second or third examinations was lower. Although it is unclear to what extent the problems with proposed examination quality and difficulty have been caused by a lack of l sufficient expertise on the part of the examination writers, the NRC has asked the industry to address this issue. Furthermore, the NRC staff has conducted and participated in a number of public meetings and workshops in an effort to communicate its expectations to the facility
r 19 employees who will be preparing the examinations. Additional NRC and industry workshops will be conducted to address examination quality and solicit industry feedback.
In SECY-96-206, the NRC staff discussed the issues of examination quality and consistency and how they might be affected when a large number of facility employees assume the role that had been filled by a smaller number of experienced NRC and contract examiners.
The NRC staffs comprehensive examination reviews versus the examination criteria in NUREG-1021, in combination with supervisory reviews and the examination oversight activities conducted by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, should mitigate the vulnerability in this area. Moreover, the industry and staff initiatives to improve the expertise of the exarnination )
writers should eventually enhance examination quality and consistency.
Comment: All four examiners who submitted comments, a nonpower reactor facility licensee, and the State of Illinois asserted that allowing the facility licensees to prepare the )
operator licensing examinations decreases the level of independence and creates a conflict of interest for facility personnel having responsibility for training and licensing the operators. Their letters maintained that the new process makes it possible for the utilities to " teach the examination," to test applicants only on what was taught, or to avoid testing in areas with known difficulties. One NRC examiner noted that the new process places training managers in a no- I win situation because if applicants fail the examination, the managers look like poor trainers, and if the examination is too easy, the NRC gives them a bad report. He and another NRC l examiner based on their experience during the pilot examinations, that some facility
- e<J personnel openly admi that they would develop the easiest possible examination to ensure that X all their applicants would pass.
1 r
) l l
One NRC examiner noted that the NRC review and approval process cannot adequately ;
l l l
l l
F-l 20 compensate for the conflict-of-interest problems inherent in this approach and recommended a change to interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 that would I!mit the licensees' latitude in selecting topics for the examination outline. The State of Illinois suggested that the NRC should compile l I
the questions and proctor the examination to maintain more of the checks and balances that existed under the old process.
The nonpower reactor facility licensee noted that most professional licensing examinations are developed by independent agencies, and that this fosters a sense of professionalism in the license applicants.
Response The NRC agrees that the revised examination process decreases the level of independence in the licensing process and may create a potential conflict of interest for facility personnel involved in preparing the examination. As discussed in SECY-96-206, the i
NRC included a number of measures in Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, including restrictions on l i
which facility employees can develop the examination and a comprehensive review of every !
I examination by an NRC examiner, to ensure that an adequate level of independence is maintained and to minimize the potential for bias in the examination development process.
Although the NRC will no longer prohibit instructors from participating in the examination i
development based solely on the amount of time they spent training the license applicants (as j discussed above in response to comments concoming the industry burden under the revised j examination process), this change is not expected to substantially increase the potential for bias in the operator licensing process because instructors will still be prohibited from writing l questions related to the topics in which they provided instruction. Moreover, as a separate <
yk YCfs4,1 aj-measure, the NRC has amended, final Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 to include an expectation M that facility licensees will use an objective, systematic process for preparing the written !
examination outline. This process enhancement should further limit the potential for bias in the
E l
l 21
- selection of topics to be evaluated on the written examination.
1 The Commission has concluded that the amended personnel restrictions, in combination I
with the systematic selection of topics fo- the written examination and the continued independent selection of topics for the operating test, will establish a sufficient level of Independence to address the vulnerability associated with the conflict of interest inherent in the i 1
- revised examination process. However, if the NRC determines that a facility licensee has 1
intentionally biased the scope, content, or level of difficulty of an examination (i.e.,
compromised its integrity contrary to 10 CFR 55.49) to enhance the chances that its applicants I would pass the examination, the NRC will utilize its enforcement authority including, as l
l warranted, civil penalties, orders against the individuals involved, and, charging the individuals involved with deliberate misconduct pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5. 1 I
Concems regarding the potential for conflict of interest and the frequency of security i incidents since beginning the pilot examination program have prompted the NRC to review the clarity of 10 CFR 55.49. The regulation encompasses not only activities like cheating and lapses in security but also activities that compromise the integrity or validity of the examination !
itself (e.g., noncompliance with the criteria designed to limit the potential for bias in the selection of topics to be evaluated on the written examination). Therefore, the NRC has concluded that it would be beneficial to amend 10 CFR 55.49 to(clearthstEi hat facility '
an rewr4 h; l
licenseesisstablish procedures to control examination security and integrity. '
~.
l Comment Three NRC examiners and the State of Illinois asserted that the revised examination process increases the threat to examination security. One examiner noted that the examination is onsite for a longer period of time, thereby proportionally increasing the risk of being compromised. Another examiner cited the fact that a number of examination reports l
,p ;
22 have documented problems with security.
Response: As discussed in SECY-96-206 and in the proposed rulemaking, the
.(,
Commission is aware of the vulnerability in this area because several security incidents have occurred since beginning the pilot examination program. Therefore, based on the comments received and the experience with security incidents, the NRC has clarified.10 CFR 55.49 in the final rule to ensure that applicants, licensees, and facility licensees understand the scope and intent of the, regulation. The NRC has also strengthened the discussion of examination security os, ve ennF, in, fir)s evision 8 of NUREG-1021 and modified NUREG-1600, " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," to address enforcement action against parties subject to the requirements in 10 CFR 55.49. NRC examiners are expected to review the NRC's physical security guidelines and the facility licensee's specific plans for ensuring examination security at the time the examination arrangements are confirmed with the designated facility contact. Furthermore, the NRC has issued an information notice to advise power reactor facility licensees of the NRC's perspective and expectations regarding the i
integrity of examinations developed by the facility licensees' employees and representstives, I and it has asked NEl to take the initiative in developing a model for securing examinations. l l
As a separate action, the NRC will delay any examination that may have been !
l compromised until the scope of the potential compromise is determined and measures can be taken to address the integrity and validity of the examination. If the compromise is discovered i efter the examination has been administered, the NRC will delay the licensing action for the affected applicants until the staff can make a determination regarding the impact that the compromise has had on the examination process. If the compromise is not discovered until after the licensing action is complete, the NRC will reevaluate the licensing decision pursuant to
23 !
10 CFR 55.61(b)(2) if it determines that the original licensing decision was based on an invalid !
I examination.
i Comment. One NRC examiner disagreed with the conclusion in the proposed rulemaking that the facility-prepared examination process is an efficient use of NRC resources when compared to the NRC-prepared or contractor-prepared examinations. He noted that, in most cases, the quality and difficulty of the proposed examinations have been below NRC l standards (as discussed above) and that it has taken a significant effort on the part of the NRC l
chief examiner to achieve an acceptable product.
An NRC contract examiner asserted that NRC cost-saving is a poor reason for changing the rule, since the utilities pay for the examinations anyway. He noted that the pilot examination ;
process has led to a loss of certified examiners and contends that those NRC examiners who are left will become more dissatisfied with theirjobs and will leave because they will be required to travel more to compensate for the loss of contractors.
Response The NRC acknowledges that many of the facility-prepared examinations (about 20 percent in FY 1997) required significantly more NRC examiner time than desired or planned in order to achieve NRC quality standards. However, questionnaires filled out by NRC chief examiners for the pilot examinations indicate that the average amount of time spent on reviewing and upgrading the examinations is generally consistent with the estimates developed before starting the pilot program (i.e. approximately 170 examiner-hours). As noted in SECY-iti 97-079, the NRC has issued a memorandum to gregional administrators emphasizing the X t
V importance of (1) assigning adequate resources to carry out the operator licensing task; (2) completing a thorough review of every facility-prepared examination;and (3) not administering any examination that fails to meet NRC standards for quality and level of difficulty.
I l
24 ruoMy%
Furthermore, all the time that NRC examiners spend reviewing an examination and M.,vi.uit so %i it v
^ L meets y standards is ultimately billed to the facility licensee. y The Commission acknowledges that facility licensees bear the cost of preparing the licensing examinations whether or not the NRC performs this function. However, this comment does not take into account the NRC's internal accounting procedures. As a result of this process change, the NRC has been able to reprogram the funds that were saved to perform -
otherfunctions.
The NRC's budget cuts have necessitated agency de downsizing, which can be S expected to result in increased travel for many NRC employees, not just the operator licensing examiners. The number of NRC full-time equivalent (FTE) license examiners has remained essentially constant throughout the pilot program and, aside from normal attrition and staff turnover, the loss of certified examiners has been limited to NRC contractors.
Comment: Two NRC examiners expressed concern that examinerproficiency will decrease as a result of implementing the revised examination process. One of the examiners stated that examination reviewers will not maintain the same base of knowledge as examination writers maintained and that they will lose their familiarity with plant operating procedures.
Response The Commission has concluded that the revised examination process affords sufficient NRC staff involvement that NRC examiners will maintain an acceptable level of proficiency. An NRC examiner will review and approve every examination before it is administered to ensure that it conforms to the criteria specified in NUREG-1021 for content, format, quality, and level of knowledge and difficulty. NRC examiners will also continue to independently administer and grade both the dynamic simulator and the plant walk-through portions of the operating tests. Because NRC examiners will be administering all of the i
)
l 4
25 l l'
operating tests, the Commission believes that the revised process will enable the examiners to accrue more experience in a shorter period of time and to maintain their proficiency. New NRC 1
license examiners will still be required to complete a standardized training program, including )
the development of a complete written examination and operating test, as part of their qualification process. Moreover, the NRC will ensure that the in-house capability to prepare the l
., I examinations is mdntained by (1) requiring each region to write at least one initit.! operator X licensing examination per calendar yearj(2) requiring a regional supervisor to review and x approve every examination and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to conduct periodic examination reviews; (b) conducting examiner refresher training; an'd (4) convening x' an
,1 licensing examiners' training conference at intervals not to exceed 24 months.
i Comment: A utility employee asserted that the revised examination process will not enhance the competency of the operators or reactor safety because the facilities' training resources will be diverted from their primary purpose (i.e., training the applicants) as much as six months before the examination date. Three NRC examiners also took issue with the conclusion in the proposed rulemaking that the NRC staff's focus on operator performance and its core of experience will improve under the pilot examination process because contractors will no longer be used to administer the operating tests. Two of the examiners asserted that the reduction in the amount of procedural research by examiners will result in the identification and correction of fewer procedural problems. Two of the examiners also stated that the contract examiners help maintain examination consistency across the NRC regions and that their contribution to the operator licensing program goes beyond simple task completion.
Response The Commission expects that those training departments that cannot readily and safely absorb the examination development work will use the funds that they were
4 26 previously paying to the NRC through the fee recovery program to secure the additional personnel to do the extra work. If a facility licensee places insufficient resources on either training or testing, the quality of its proposed licensing examinations or the passing rate on i those examinations would most likely suffer. Although many of the facility-prepared examinations have required significant changes to achieve NRC quality standards, the
' examination results, to date, are generally consistent with the results on previous NRC-prepared examinations, suggesting that the quality of the facility licensees' training programs has not been affected. Therefore, the fact that facility licensees will be preparing the examinations is not expected to have a negative effect on reactor safety.
The NRC acknowledges that the contract examiners identified procedural and training problems in addition to their primary responsibility for preparing and administering the licensing examinations, and that they helped maintain examination consistency by working on examinations in each of the NRC's regions. As noted in connection with the discussion of examination quality, the Commission realizes that the revised examination process increases 4ki retsnon d) the possibility of inconsistency, but it believes that the examination criteria in,finahevisionX 8 of NUREG-1021, in combination with the NRC's examination oversight programs, will minimize ihbe! ^
M inconsistencies so that they remain within acceptable limits. #
When the NRC initiated the pilot program, its goal was to eliminate the need for NRC contract examiners without compromising the existing levels of reactor safety. Because NRC examiners will be administering all of the operating tests, the revised process will enable the NRC examiners to accrue more experience in a shorter period of time and may improve the consistency of the operating test evaluations and the licensing decisions. Although the total number of procedures reviewed in the process of developing examinations may be fewer under the revised method, NRC examiners will still be expected to review and identify discrepancies in
y
}
27 the ' procedures that will be exercised during the walk-through portion of the operating test and during the simulator scenarios. I l
l Other Comments ,
1 Nac ,
y Since beginning the pilot examination program, the Ccmmb.;en has sought to obtain up-to-date insights regarding the effectiveness of the revised examination process based on the
- staff's grcwing body of experience in reviewing the facility-prepared examinations. Many of the I
staff comments received have paralleled the public comments and require no further attention 1
-in this notice. However, one recommendation to amend the actual wording of the proposed regulation is considered worthy of discussion and incorporation. Specifically, it was recommended that the rule should indicate that a key manager would be responsible for '
submitting the examination because that individual would be in a position to ensure that the facility licensee's operations and training departments apply sufficient resources to prepare a ,
Nac.' / l quality examination. The Ge=m!!?bNnds that the recommendation is consistent with normal NRC practice and the analogous regulatory requirement in $55.31(a)(3), which requires "...an authorized representative of the facility licensee by which the applicant will be employed..." to submit a written request that examinations be administered to the applicant. Therefore, the wording of $55.40(a)(2) has been amended to require an authorized representative of the facility licensee to approve the written examinations and operating tests before they are l
submitted to the NRC for review and approval.
1 l
28 Availability of Guidance Document for Preparing Operator Licensing Examinations l
As a consequence of preparing and administering the initial operator licensing examinations over a number of years, the NRC has developed a substantial body of guidance to aid its examiners. That guidance has been published in various versions of NUREG-1021, the latest version of which (final Revision 8) incorporates lessons learned since interim Revision 8 was published in February 1997j as well as refinements prompted by the comments submitted X in response to the FRN of August 7,1997 (62 FR 42426), which solicited public comments in
% wveoen k l conjunction with the proposed rulemaking. A copy of finalHevision 8 of NUREG-1021 will be
/ ,
mailed to each facility licensee. Copies may be inspected and/or copied for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room,2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Final Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 is also electronically available for downloading from the internet at I l
"http://www.nrc. gov." l The NRC plans to prepare, administer, and grade initial operator licensing examinations at least four times a year, using NUREG-1021 as guidance. Licensees will also be expected to use the guidance in NUREG-1021 to prepare the licensing examinations. The NRC staff will review and approve any attematives that do not conform with this guidance. The NRC will not approve any altemative that would compromise its statutory responsibility of prescribing uniform conditions for the operator licensing examinations. Examples of unacceptable attematives include, but are not limited to, the use of essay questions in place of multiple choice questions and the administration of open book examinations.
1 L
29 Final Rule ,
l l
This regulation adds a new section, $55.40, " Implementation," to Subpart E of 10 CFR
' Part 55, which requires power reactor facility licensees to prepare the written examinations and operating tests, to submit the examinations that have been approved by an authorized ]
representative of the facility licensee to the NRC for review and approval, and to proctor and grade the written' examinations. These requirements are contained in $$55.40(a)(1), (2), and (3), respectively.
~ Each power. reactor facility licensee is expected to prepare and submit the proposed examinations (including the written examination, the walk-through, and the dynamic simulator tests) to the NRC consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1021. An authorized representative of the facility licensee shall approve the written examinations and operating tests before they are submitted to the NRC. The NRC staff will review the entire examination and direct whatever changes are necessary to ensure that adequate levels of quality, difficulty, and consistency are maintained. After the NRC staff reviews and approves an examination, the facility licensee will proctor and grade the written portion consistent with the guidance in ;
NUREG-1021. The NRC staff will continue to independently administer and grade the operating tests, review and approve the written examination results, and make the final licensing decisions. The facility licensee will not conduct parallel operator evaluations during j the dynamic simulator or the walk-through tests.
Pursuant to the requirements in $55.40(b), the NRC staff maintains the authority to I
prepare the examinations and tests and to proctor and grade the site-specific written l_
examinations. This allows the NRC to maintain its staff proficiency to perform these activities.
J
30 Also, if the NRC has reason to question a licensee's ability to prepare an acceptable mmination, $55.40 (b) gives the NRC authority to prepare and administer the examinations and tests.
Paragraph (c) of $55.40 reasserts that the NRC will continue to prepare and administer the written examinations and operating tests at non-power reactor facilities. The NRC has taken this position because the non-power reactor community does not have an accreditation process for training and qualification or the resources to prepare the examinations.
This regulation also amends $55.49 because the NRC has determined, since the proposed rule was published, that applicants, licensees, and facility licensees may be interpreting $55.49 too narrowly by limiting it to actual cases of cheating. The amendment clarifies that the regulation pertains to all activities that could affect the equitable and consistent administration of the examination, including activities prior to, during, and after the examination is administered. The amendment also states the NRC's expectation that facility licensees will establish procedures to control examination securitf and integrity.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determir,2d . hat this rule is the type of action described as a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this regulation.
4 31 Paperwork Reduction Act Statement I
This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0101. The additional public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of -
t information (i.e., preparing the examinations). Send comments on any aspect of this collection
- of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by intemet electronic mail to bjs1@nrc. gov, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0101), Office of Management and
' Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
1 Public Protection Notification !
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a i collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Regulatory Analysis i
The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the attematives considsrcd by the Commission. The I
i
< 32 regulatory 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
- Siegfned Guenther, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at 301-415-1056 or by e-mail at sxg@nrc. gov.
Regulatory Flexibility Certification in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule does not have a significart economic impact on a substantial
. number of small entities. This rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" described in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards stated in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.
Backfit Analysis
. The pertinent part of 10 CFR 50.109(a)(1) defines backfitting as "the modification of or addition to ... the procedures or organization required to ... operate a facility; any of which may
- result from a new or amended provision in the Commission's rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission's rules that is either new or different from a previously applicable staff position...." Part 55 addresses the qualifications and requirements for operators' licenses and changes are not per se subject to the backfd rule in Part 50.
Changes to these requirements could be included within the backfit definition of " procedures or organization required to ... operate a facility;" however, in this case, the shift of responsibility K
i i
33 from the NRC staff (or its contractors) to the facility licensee for developing and administering the initial written operator license examination, developing the initial operating tests, and establishing procedures to control examination security and integrity would not constitute a l
" modification of the procedures required to operate a facility" within the scope of the backfit rule.
Therefore, no backfit analysis is necessary.
This rule does not affect the basic procedures for operator license qualification, i.e., the l
required training programs, the required testing, the content and format of the exams, the I
grading of the exams, or the basis for issuing an operator license. The shift in responsibility for l preparation of the initial licensing examination does not affect the content or format of the examination.- The rule is designed to ensure that the format, content, and quality of the initial written examination will not be modified. The rule requires the NRC to provide oversight of facility licensees' development and administration of initial written examinations and the
. development of the operating tests. The NRC also retains its discretion to determine whether to administer the initial written examination itself, as well as continuing to determine whether to grant or deny an application for a reactor operator or senior reactor operator license, and consider candidates' appeals.
The licensee's organizational structure required to operate the facility will not be modified. All reactor licensees have a training component as part of their organizational structure, and this rule does not alter that organizational structure. Althoug , the rule could X have an "effect" on the licensee's organization, it does not require any modification to the organizational structure.
t
34 Enforcement Policy In conjunction with this final rule, the Commission is separately publishing modifications to NUREG-1600," General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions,"
to address enforcement action against parties subject to the requirements in 10 CFR 55.49 (i.e., Part 55 license applicants / licensees and Part 50 licensees).
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 55 Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons given in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act
,sSzandy l of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C/553; f ;
the NRC adopts the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 55.
PART 55 - OPERATORS' LICENSES l
- 1. The authority citation for Part 55 continues to read as follows:
i AUTHORITY: Secs. 107,161,182, 68 Stat. 939, 948, 953 , as amended, sec. 234, 83 L _
Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 2232, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 l Stat.1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841,5842).
L
\
35 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 under secs. 186,187,68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237). ,
l
- 2. In $55.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
655.8 InformatiorMollection Weauirements: OMB doroval.
V /V V l
I (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in
$$55.31,55.40,55.45,55.53, and 55.59. 1 g
.yg a
M M !
- 3. A new $55.40 is added to read as follows:
$55.40 Imolementation.
(a) Power reactor facility licensees shall-(1) Prepare the required site-specific written examinations and operating tests; (2) Upon approval by an authorized representative of the facility licensee, submit the written examinations and operating tests to the Commission for review and approval; and (3) Proctor and grade the NRC-approved site-specific written examinations. /
j (b) In lieu of requiring a specific power re$ctor facility licensee to prepare the examinations and tests or to proctor and grade the site-specific written examinations, the Commission may elect to perform those tasks.
(c) The Commission will prepare and administer the written examinations and operating tests at non-power reactor facilities.
k
l 36 sech&n f 55.49 l revised to read as follows: i 44 I 655.49 Intaarity of examinations and tests.
Applicants, licensees, and facility licensees shall not engage in any act'vity that l
l compromises the integrity of any application, test, or examination required by this part, and I
i facility licensees shall establish, implement, and maintain procedures to prevent compromises. j l
l An examination or test is considered compromised if any activity, regardless of intent, affected, ;
or but for detection would have affected, the equitable and consistent administration of the test I or examination. This includes activities related to the preparation and certification of the license applications and all activities related to the preparation, administration, and grading of the l l
required tests and examinations. l Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of .1998.
i For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. !
John C. Hoyle, Secretary of the Commission.
i
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l l
l j Enclosure 3 Regulatory Analysis l
l l l l
1 l
l l
1 l
l l
l l l i
REGULATORY ANALYSIS FOR RULEMAKING ON REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATIONS ,
l
- 1. Statement of Problem and Objective I I
Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act.of 1954 (AEA), as amended, requires the NRC to determine the qualifications of igvpuals applying for an operator license, to prescribe uniform conditions for licensing 4udfindividuals, and to issue licenses as appropriate. X To implement this statutory mandate, operator license applicants are required by 10 CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," to pass a written examination and an operating test. The written examination and operating test must satisfy the basic content requirements that are specified in the regulation. Although neither the AEA nor Part 55 specifies who must prepare, administer, and grade these examinations, the NRC has i
. traditionally performed those tasks itself or through its contract examiners. Because this has been a costly process in terms of NRC personnel and contractual support, the NRC staff has evaluated an attemative approach - one that will require nuclear power plant licensees to prepare the examinations and submit them to the NRC for review and approval. This approach has been tested and assessed through a voluntary pilot ,
program and has been deemed by the NRC staff to be feasible. The monitoring and i assessment of this voluntary pilot program has demonstrated that examinations prepared by facility licensees and modified as directed by the NRC are comparable in terms of their quality and discrimination validity to those prepared by the NRC and its l contract examiners under the existing process; therefore, the safe operation of the i nuclear power plants is not compromised by using the attemative approach. Thus, the NRC is amending 10 CFR Part 55 to require nuclear power plant licensees to prepare these examinations and has published a final version of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, l
" Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," as guidance. This action will allow the NRC to eliminate the need for contractor support for the operator ;
licensing program (with the exception of the generic fundamentals examination). The !
fiscal year (FY) 1998 and FY 1999 budgets are consistent with this proposal and already j reflect the elimination of contract examiner support made possible under the voluntary l pilot and transition program.
- The NRC staff's primary objective in shifting responsibility for preparing the initial J operator licensing examinations to the power reactor facility licensees is to reduce the amount of NRC resources used in this area. This change in policy is part of the NRC's continuing effort to streamline the functions of the Federalfl'ovemment consistent with X' the Administration's initiatives and to accommodate NRC resource reductions. Given the limited resources available, the NRC has judged that the operator licensing contractor funds could be better spent on other work rather than paying for examinations that the facility licensees are generally qualified and motivated to prepare. Pursuant to the provisions of the AEA, the NRC will ensure that the quality of the operator licensing examinations and the effectiveness of the operator licensing program are maintained.
These changes are not intended to affect the format, content, scope, quality and level of difficulty of the examinations, thereby minimizing the impact of the rule change on the operator license applicants.
l' l'
1 l
l
u
- 2. Background 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) requires the applicant for an operator's license to submit a written request from an authorized representative of the facility licensee that the written examination and the operating test be administered to the applicant. Furthermore, 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) states that the Commission will approve an initial application for a license if it finds that the applicant has passed the requisite written examination and operating test in accordance with $655.41 and 55.45 for reactor operators, or 9655.43 and 55.45 for senior operators. These written examinations and operating tests determine whether the applicant for an operator's license has leamed to operate a facility competently and safely, and additionally, in the case of a senior operator, whether the applicant has learned to direct the licensed activities of licensed operators competently and safely.
As stated above, the NRC or its contract examiners have traditionally prepared, administered, and graded the written examinations and operating tests. Before beginning the pilot program, the NRC spent approximately $3 million per year to retain contractor support for the operator licensing programs (including initial licensing examinations and requalification inspections). In accordance with 10 CFR 170.12 (i),
the NRC staff and contractual costs are recovered from the facility licensees that receive examination services.
This rule will change the current practice in which the NRC prepares and proctors the initial examination for reactor operators and senior operators and, instead, will require each power reactor facility licensee to prepare the entire examination and proctor and grade the written portion of the initial examination. This action does not modify the procedures or organization required to operate the plant, and, therefore, does not constitute a backfit pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109.
- 3. Identification and Analysis of Three Alternative Approaches 3.1 Alternative 1 -Take No Action As discussed above, the budget.for FYs 1998 and 1999 is consistent with this action and reflects the elimination of contract support. If 10 CFR Part 55 is not amended, it may require actions such asj(1) the restoration of contractor support for the operator N
- 2) an increase in the direct examiner resources in each regional M licensing office to satisfyprogramj the (demand for initial licensing examinations and g i implementation of other measures (e.g., changing the format or length of the '
examinations) that will enable the existing NRC staff to conduct the examination and inspection programs or (4) scheduling the examinations based on the NRC resources R
. available (which ma;y require the staff to prioritize its activities based on the faciM licensees' needs).
Aa4[
2
3.2 Alternative 2 - Provide Regulatory Guidance This attemative was rejected because the NRC staff considers implementation of the new process on a voluntary basis alone unworkable over the long term. If the NRC does not require facility licensees to prepare the initial operator licensing examinations, there will be no guarantee that each licensee would elect to prepare these examinations.
With the elimination of contractor support, t5e NRC staff may no longer have sufficient examiner resources to prepare examinations consistent with the scheduling needs of facility licensees. This resource problem is further compounded by the unpredictable nature of the examination workload and by other unanticipated demands on the examiner work force.
3.3 Alternative 3 - Amend 10 CFR Part 55 This altemative requires every power reactor facility licensee to prepare the initial operator licensing examinations and to proctor and grade the written portion of the examination. This enables the NRC to eliminate the use of contractors in the operator licensing program (with the exception of the generic fundamentals examinations).
Before initiating the pilot examination and transition program at the beginning of FY 1996, the NRC spent approximately $3 million per year on contractor support for licensing examinations and requalification inspections. Under this attemative, the NRC staff will perform those tasks that were previously performed by contract examiners, including examination administration and inspections of licensee requalification programs. The funds will be spent on other, high priority NRC work, rather than paying for contractors to prepare examinations that the facility licensees are generally qualified to prepare. As discussed above, the budget for FYs 1998 and 1999 is consistent with this action and reflects the elimination of contract support.
- 4. Regulatory impact - Qualitative Costs and Eenefits Facility Licensees Before beginning the pilot examination program, the NRC depended on NRC employees and contractors to prepare and administer the initial operator licensing examinations required by 10 CFR Part 55. NRC contractors also assisted in the inspection of requalification programs administered by facility licensees. In accordance with 10 CFR 170.12 (i), the cost of NRC time spent and any related contractual costs were (and are) billed directly to the facility licensees that receive (d) the examination services.
Under the revised examination process, each power reactor facility licensee will assume l responsibility for preparing the site-specific initial operator licensing examinations at its facilities. This will allow the NRC to discontinue the use of contract examiners for both the initial licensing and requalification inspection programs. Facility licensees will be expected to prepare the proposed examinations (including the written examination, the walk-through, and the dynamic simulator tests) based on the guidance in NUREG-1021 and to submit the examinations to the NRC for review and approval. Facility licensees 3
will have the option to hire a contractor to prepare the license examination (as the NRC often did before starting the pilot process).
This rule change gives facility licensees more control over the cost of their examination services because it puts them in a position to manage the quality of the product that is j submitted to the NRCc The higher the quality of the examination that the facility licensee - ,
submits, the lower the resulting NRC charges. If the NRC or one of its contractors i writes an examination, the facility licensee is responsible for the entire cost of preparing j the examination.
The NRC will thoroughly review the examinations prepared by the facility licensees consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1021 and will direct the facility training staffs to make_whatever changes are necessary to achieve a product that meets the NRC's standards for quality and level of difficulty. Each facility licensee will be billed only for i the time that the NRC staff spends to review the examination prepared by the facility licensee, to direct the revisions that are necessary for the examination to meet NRC standards, and to administer and grade the operating tests. The NRC will not approve any examination that fails to meet its standards or that compromises the NRC's statutory responsibility for prescribing uniform conditions for the licensing of operators pursuant to the AEA. Examples of unacceptable deviations include, but may not be limited to, the use of essay questions in lieu of multiple choice questions and the administration of open-book examinations.
After the NRC reviews and approves an examination, the facility licensee will proctor l and grade the written portion according to the guidance in NUREG-1021. The NRC staff will continue to administer and grade the operating tests, review and approve the !
written examination results recommended by the facility licensee, and make the final i licensing decisions.
Based on lessons leamed and feedback from the pilot examinations completed at the time, the proposed regulatory analysis predicted that the average time spent by a facility licensee to prepare the written examination and operating tests would be approximately 600 to 800 staff)liours. Because a portion of that time (about 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />) would be spent V i reviewing and assisting with the administration of NRC-developed examinations under the traditional examination process,200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br /> should be subtracted from the total. The ,
resulting average burden of approximately 400 to 600 staff [ours was somewhat higher A than the 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br /> that the NRC staff or its contract examiners typically take to prepare ;
an examination. The extra burden was generally attributable to the facility licensees' unfamiliarity with specific NRC examination expectations and to the additional i administrative tasks, such as documenting the source of the examination questions, required to maintain examination integrity. The NRC staff believed that the facility training staffs already had the basic knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to evaluate operator performance and develop test items for the initial licensing examination and expected that the burden would dirninish as facility training staffs gained familiarity and experience with the NRC's specific examination requirements and expectations. Moreover, the NRC staff expected that the facility employees' more detailed knowledge of their facility and easier access to the reference materials required 4
l to prepare the examinations would eventually enable them to prepare acceptable quality examinations in less time than the NRC or a contractor could.
In an effort to quantify the potential cost savings, the proposed regulatory analysis assumed that the facility licensees would eventually prepare the examinations in the same amount of time as the NRC allotted its contract examiners to perform the task (i.e., approximately 400 hours0.00463 days <br />0.111 hours <br />6.613757e-4 weeks <br />1.522e-4 months <br />), and that the time would be equally distributed between 1 contractors and the licensee's own in-house staff at a cost of $120 per hour and $60 per hour, respectively. This translated into an industrywide burden of $2.16 million, assuming 60 site-specific licensing examinations per year, and was roughly the same as l the cost would be if the NRC were to prepare the examinations relying equally on in-house and contractor staff efforts. The NRC staff had no basis for estimating the cost savings that might be gained if facility licensees availed themselves of the aforementioned efficiencies, but a 10 percent reduction in the burden would result in a small industrywide savings of about $220,000 per year.
i The proposed rulemaking that was published in the FederalRegister(62 FR 42426) on August 7,1997, specifically requested public comments on the NRC staff's conclusion in the proposed regulatory analysis that it would eventually be less costly for each facility licensee to prepare its own initial operator examinations rather than to have an NRC contractor prepare the examinations for all licensed operators with the costs reimbursed by licensee fees. The proposed rulemaking also invited public comments on interim l Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, which defines the NRC's examination criteria and expectations. Seven respondents directly or indirectly addressed the resource question in their comment letters, and seven respondents submitted specific comments and recommendations related to NUREG-1021.
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and one utility stated that the revised examination criteria in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 have increased the level of effort and will result in higher licensing fees regardless of who prepares the examinations. However, NEl and another utility agreed that comparing the cost of utility-prepared examinations to those prepared by the NRC is difficult. They concluded that it should be less costly for utilities to prepare the examinations than to have the NRC prepare them, provided the preparers are using exactly the same criteria. NEl also stated that the relative cost of the two examination processes should not be the only factor in deciding whether to proceed with the rulemaking. NEl indicated that preparing higher-cognitive level questions requires detailed plant knowledge better known to licensees and that the revised process will allow NRC staff to concentrate on directly evaluating each applicant without relying on third-party observers.
Two NRC examiners, one contract examiner, and a utility employee asserted that the facility licensees' cost has increased under the revised examination process. They cited various reasons for the increased cost, including training personnel to write the examinations and then restricting them from training the applicants and upgrading equipment to maintain examination security. The NRC examiners based their opinions on informal feedback from facility training personnel. One examiner indicated that it was taking facility licensees an average of 700 hours0.0081 days <br />0.194 hours <br />0.00116 weeks <br />2.6635e-4 months <br /> to prepare each examination. The 5
]
utility employee stated that the rule will simply transfer the cost of contractors from the NRC to the utilities.
The NRC staff acknowledges that the revised examination and administrative criteria in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 have probably caused the cost of the examinations to be somewhat higher than it would have been if facility licensees had been allowed to I prepare the examinations using the same criteria that applied to the NRC and its contractors before starting the pilot program. The staff has reevaluated the revised criteria in light of the public comments and lessons learned during the pilot examination program and concluded that the criteria remain necessary to mitigate the vulnerabilities (e.g., quality, security, and conflict of interest) inherent in the revised examination process and to facilitate the NRC staff's review of the proposed examinations. The staff has incorporated several minor changes (e.g., allowing instructors to prepare written examination questions on subjects they did not teach, without regard to the amount of time they spent training the applicants) and clarifications in the final version of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021. However, the changes are not expected to significantly affect the ,
cost of preparing an examination. !
l Despite the revised examination and administrative criteria, .many of the facility l licensees that participated in the pilot program demonstrated that it is possible to i prepare an acceptable quality examination at the same or lower cost than the NRC or its contractors could prepare a comparable examination. However, approximately 40 percent of proposed pilot examinations have not met NRC standards for quality and have required significant changes. The fact that the lower quality examinations take {
longer to review and require significant rework by the facility licensees has driven up i their total cost and caused the staff to question the validity of its original expectation that the industry may realize additional cost reductions as it gains experience with the NRC's examination requirements.
As noted earlier, the proposed regulatoly analysis assumed that the training personnel at power reactor facilities already have the basic expertise necessary to develop test items for the initiallicensing examination. During the second half of the 1980s, the industry increased its emphasis in the training area, and all power reactor licensees established formal training programs that were based on a systems approach to training (SAT) and were accredited by the National Academy for Nuclear Training. Moreover, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.120 and 55.4, SAT-based training programs must evaluate the trainee's mastery of training objectives, and NRC inspections of licensee requalification programs for licensed operators confirmed that training staffs generally possessed the skills needed to evaluate the trainees' knowledge.
However, the public comments on the proposed rule, comments from NRC examiners involved with the pilot examinations, and the number of significant changes required on many of the pilot examinations have raised concems about the capability of some of the facilities to write the licensing examinations. The NRC staff realizes that the restrictions on the use of instructors to prepare the licensing examinations may have prompted some facility licensees having smaller training staffs to use less-qualified personnel to prepare the examinations. And although the NRC continues to believe that personnel 6
l l
1 l restrictions are necessary to address the potential for conflicts of interest in the l l examination development process, it has reconsidered the scope of the restrictions in l
interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 in an effort to reduce the potential burden on facility l licensees. Consequently, final Revision 8 will allow facility instructors to prepare the l written examination questions without regard to the amount of time they spent training i the license applicants. However, final Revision 8 will still preclude instructors from preparing questions related to those topics on which they provided instruction and from ;
instructing the applicants once they begin working on the licensing examination (as was l the case in interim Revision 8).
It is unclear to what extent the examination quality has been affected by the training and qualification of the examination writers, but the NRC staff has asked the industry to address this issue and to determine the need for additional standards for training on testing a,nd m,Mnitiative is uncertain at this time, but the benefits would K be throughout the facility licensees' training programs and not just in the initial operator i licensing program.
With regard to the additional security costs cited in the public comments, it is important to note that although the NRC has stressed the seriousness of maintaining examination security, the staff has not required that facility licensees invest in additional physical security systems. The NRC's expectations regarding the facility licensees' responsibility for maintaining examination security were outlined in draft Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, '.
which was issued for public comment in February 1996, and subsequently clarified in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, which was issued for use in February 1997. The
- security incidents that occurred during the pilot program and the public comments on the l proposed rule prompted the NRC to include additional security guidelines in final Revision 8 of NUREG-1021; however, the guidelines are instructional in nature and do not require any security system improvements. The security incidents that occurred during the pilot program has also prompted the NRC to conclude that applicants, f licensees, and facility licensees may not understand the provisions of $55.49, " Integrity of Examinations and Tests." Therefore, the NRC has determined that it would be
___ beneficial to amend 655.49 in the final rule to @ lea yJstat#the4xpostabodhat facility h es)
- h. licensee 7 establish and maintain procedures to control examination security and
, integrity. The NRC staff believes that most facility li_censees have already established examination security policies and practices, so the additional cost of documenting those policies and practices in formal procedures should not be significant. Establishing formal security procedures should raise facility employees' awareness of this important issue and could avert future security incidents that might require examinations (or portions of the examinations) to be deiayed and replaced at significant expense to the affected facility licensees.
As noted in the proposed regulatory analysis, the revised examination process will eliminate the need for facility licensees to duplicate and ship multiple sets of reference materials because NRC contract examiners (who would have required a separate copy
,. of the reference material) will not be used to prepare the examinations. Feedback from l
the industry in response to the NRC staffs solicitation of public comments on the draft 7
t
revision of NUREG-1021 (refer to 61 FR 6869, of February 22,1996) indicated that l facility licensees had been spending an additional 80 to 160 hours0.00185 days <br />0.0444 hours <br />2.645503e-4 weeks <br />6.088e-5 months <br /> to prepare and ship the reference materials under the existing examination process. Under the revised process, the facility licensees will generally submit only materials that are needed for the NRC chief examiner to verify the accuracy of the examination questions. This is a reduction of resources, but it has not been quantified in this analysis.
in summary, before beginning the pilot program, the NRC relied on its own staff and contractors to write the site-specific operator licensing examinations, and the cost was billed to the facility licensees in accordance with 10 CFR 170.12 (i). . To -:--;;:g:5!y e X prepare and administer such examinations, the NRC stcff and contractors had to learn the details (,7 the operation of each specific plant. M Ti d,*u,. ,a-z2:t ' MTo l
/.
prepare the examimetions, the examining stafguplicatepfTecTnical expertise already 48d N '
fM5 ' present at each site. This rule will eliminatgesuch inemciency by placing the responsibility for preparing the examinations upon each power reactor facility licensee.
l Efficiency should be gained if the NRC focuses its efforts on maintaining the appropriate scope, depth, and quality of the examinations, leaving the preparation of the detailed examination materials to the facility licensees.-
The NRC expects that the initial period of inefficiency will continue until facility licensees learn the process for preparing the examinations, expand and improve their examination question banks, and upgrade the capabilities of their training staffs, as necessary.
Experience during the pilot examination program has demonstrated that the quality of the examinations and the efficiency of the process will be slow to improve. It may take considerable time and effort to develop a bank of written examination questions appropriate for use on the initial licensing examination, but such a bank should improve the quality of future examinations and should be more efficient. The NRC still expects that with experience and training most facility licensees will be able to prepare acceptable quality examinations that require less NRC review resources and provide larger potential savings to the licensees. Those facility licensees that submit acceptable quality examinations are likely to save resources despite the additional administrative criteria that the NRC considers necessary under the revised examination process.
However, those facility licensees that submit examinations that require many changes because they do not meet NRC quality standards, will likely end up with a more ' costly examination than if it had been prepared by the NRC.
Ooerator License Anolicants To the extent possible, the format, content, quality, and level of difficulty of the examinations should remain unchanged, thereby minimizing the impact of the rule change on the operator license applicants. NRC examiners will continue to review, to direct revisions where necessary, and approve every written examination and operating test before it is administered. The NRC acknowledges that some of the facility-prepared examinations will be more difficult than others and that some of the variation can likely be trace l to individual differences among the NRC examiners who review and approve the examinationsASush,was also the case when the NRC or its contractors wrote the examinations. Howevert the NRC believes that the variation in the level of difficulty cari (,
1 l 8 E
i l
be maintained within acceptable limits and would be even greater if NRC examiners do not take action to ensure that the submitted examinations are consistent with NRC standards.
The average reactor operator (RO) and senior operator (SRO) passing rates on both the written and operating portions of the 68 facility-prepared examinations administered through the end of FY 1997 were only slightly lower than the corresponding passing rates on the NRC-prepared examinations administered during FY 1995, the last year in which all of the examinations were prepared by the NRC or its contractors. However, the average passing rates tend to fluctuate, and the pilot examination results were comparable to the range of passing rates for FYs 1990 through 1994. The average passing rates for ROs on the facility-prepared operating tests during FYs 1996 and 1997 were consistent with the passing rates on the tests prepared by the NRC during those same years. Although the passing rate on the facility-prepared SRO operating tests during FY 1997 was slightly lower than in FY 1995, it was the same as the passing rate on the NRC-prepared operating tests during FY 1996.
The NRC staff believes that the lower passing rate on the facility-prepared written examinations for reactor operators and senior operators may be a reflection of the NRC examiners' increased concentration on the psychometric quality (e.g., the cognitive level I at which the questions are written and the plausibility of the distractors or wrong answer l choices) in addition to the technical quality of the examinations. Although the NRC did not intend for the level of difficulty or the failure rate of the examinations to increase, it is possible that the NRC examiners' efforts to achieve NRC standards regarding the cognitive level of the questions and the plausibility of the distractors have affected the discrimination validity of the examinations. Consequently, those marginal applicants who may have passed an examination on which two of the distractors could often be eliminated as implausible are now having more difficulty. However, considering the historical fluctuation in the average examination passing rates and the other factors (e.g., training program quality arid screening of applicants by facility licensees) that could be responsible for some or all of the observed decline, the staff has concluded that any increase in the level of difficulty is not significant.
If the NRC decides to prepare the examination in lieu of accepting an examination prepared by the facility licensee, the NRC examiners will use the same procedures and guidance (i.e., NUREG-1021) that the facility licensees would use to prepare the examinations.
NRC Staff When the staff developed the pilot examination process, it estimated that it would take 1 approximately 370 examiner [ hours to review and otherwise prepare for, administer, grade, and document an average operator licensing examination. Although a number of the proposed examinations consumed more NRC resources than expected to achieve NRC's standards, the resource burden was generally offset by other examinations that required loss effort to review and revise. Therefore, the NRC staff continues to believe that the use of contractors in the operator licensing program (except for the generic 9
i fundamentals examination) can be eliminated and that the revised initial operator i licensing and requalification inspection programs can be implemented with the existing j NRC staff. Before initiating the pilot examination and transition process at the beginning of FY 1996, the NRC spent approximately $3 million per year for contractor assistance to prepare and administer initial examinations and assist with requalification inspections.
During FY 1996, when approximately 40 percent (27/68) of the examinations were ;
voluntarily prepared by facility licensees, the NRC spent approximately $1.6 million for i contractor assistance in those areas. In FY 1997, facility participation increased to include approximately 75 percent (41/55) of the examinations, and the NRC's spending on contractor assistance for the licensing examinations and requalification inspections decreased to approximately $0,5 million (approximately 3 full-time, equivalents (FTEs)).
During FY 1997, the NRC expended approximately 16.8 staff FTEs to conduct all the site-specific initial operator licensing examinations, plus 3.P staff FTEs for generic operator licensing activities. The licensed operator requh...ication inspection program consumed approximately 4.5 additional staff FTEs (plus a minimal level of contractor support), bringing the total resources used for the operator licensing program in FY j 1997 to approximately 28.1 FTEs. This actual resource burden is generally consistent l with the budget estimates prepared before beginning the pilot examination program and supports the staff's conclusion that the revised examination process is an efficient alternative to the traditional Nilp-prepared examinations. The NRC resource burden should decrease further(f-eywhen the rule is implemented (which would cause the number of NRC-prepared examinations to decrease) and the quality of the facility- X]
prepared examinations improves.
However, experience during the pilot program has shown that the quality of the facility- ,
prepared examinations can vary widely, making it difficult to predict the amount of time !
necessary for the NRC to review and revise any particular examination so as to meet i NRC standards. Although the staff had expected the quality of the examinations to improve over time, some of the proposed examinations continue to require more ,
changes than anticipted. The added examiner workload could increase the possibility !
of lower examination quality, raise the NRC's cost, and affect the staff's ability to satisfy !
the facility licensees' needs for licensing examinations. As noted in SECY-97-079, the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has issued a memorandum to the regional administrators emphasizing the importance of^R1) assigning adequate resources to carry X ;
out the operator licensing taskj (2) completing $a thorough review of every facility-prepared examination; and (3) not administung any examination that does not meet x NRC standards for quality and level of difficuky.
- 5. Decision Rationale The endments to 10 CFR Part 55 will require all power reactor facility X l licensees to ' prepare the entire initial operator licensing examinations and to proctor and grade the written portion of the examinations. The qualitative assessment of costs and benefits discussed above, leads the NRC to conclude that the overal impact of the rulemakinggot significantly increase licensee costs and eventually result in ;
a savings t licensees as they become more familiar with the NRC examination guidelines. Any improvements in efficiency likely be due, i part, to the facility X 1* i Will dlll M1
f employees' better understanding of the plant design and operating characteristics and their ready access to the reference materials required to prepare and validate the examinations. The apparent need of some facilities to improve their examination development capabilities in order to achieve the expected standards for examination quality may delay the realization of cost savings for some facility licensees and may limit the overall industry cost benefit. Facility licensees that do not prepare examinations that meet the NRC's quality standards will likely derive no cost benefit from this action because of the additional effort required to review and rewrite the examinations.
l The voluntary pilot program has demonstrated that the revised examination process is l effective as well as efficient. The pilot examinations, revised as directed by the NRC, l
were comparable in terms of their quality to examinations prepared by the NRC and its contract examiners. The overall passing rate and average written examination grades on the 68 pilot examinations administered during FYs 1996 and 1997 were the same as, or slightly lob r than, those on the power reactor licensing examinations during FY 1995, when all the examinations were prepared by the NRC or its contractors.
Therefore, the safe operation of the facilities was in no way compromised.
The NRC staff believes that its ability to focus on operator performance and its core of experience may improve if the pilot process is implemented on an industrywide basis because every applicant will be directly observed by an NRC employee. Before beginning the transition process, contract examiners administered about half of the operating tests and collected the observations that formed the basis for the NRC's
- licensing actions. The revised process will enable the NRC examiners to accrue more experience in a shorter period of time and may improve the consistency of the operating test evaluations and the licensing decisions. Although the total number of procedures reviewed in the process of examination development may decrease under the revised method, NRC examiners are still expected to review and identify discrepancies in the l l
procedures that will be exercised during the plant walk-through test and the dynamic simulator scenarios.
Alternative 3 was selected as the preferred attemative because it has the potential to save the facility licensees money as they become proficient in preparing the examinations, has negligible impact upon operator license applicants, provides a substantial cost savings to the NRC, and has the potential for an improvement in the staffs experience and ability to focus on operator performance.
- 6. Implementation Schedule
& c e% c e(pedQe 9 The rule wili p ;mp,.mnt.f ,180 days after the date on which it is published in the A Federa/ Register. No effect on other schedules 'is anticipated.
i-11 I 4
I i
Enclosure 4 Congressional Letters
w . ,
L The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chairman - ,
' Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 3
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The NRC has sent the enclosed amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 55 to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. This, rulemaking will require facility licensees to prepare the entire initial examination for reactor operators and senior reactor operators and to proc' tor and grade the written portion of the examination. Facility licensees will be required tr.
submit the examinations and tects to the NRC for review and approval. This rulemaking preserves the NRC's authority to prepare the examinations and tests, as necessary, and
)
enables the NRC to eliminate the use of contractors for the operator licensing program.
Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA),'as amended, requires the NRC to determine the qualifications of individuals applying for an operator license, to prescribe uniform conditions for licensing such individuals, and to issue licenses as appropriate. Operator license applicants are required by F CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," to pass an examination satisfying the basic content requirements that are also specified in the regulation. Although the AEA is not specific as to who will prepare and administer the examination, the NRC has traditionally performed these functions through its staff or contract examiners. This final rule ,
requires facility licensees to prepare and administer the site-specific written examinations in
{
recognition of the improvements in industry training programs,' to make the operator licensing program more efficient, and to realize budgetary savings for the Federal Govemment.
,b V Historically, the NRC has spent approximately $3 million annually on contractor support for operator licensing examinations and requalification inspections.
- The NRC will continue to (1) prepare and administer the generic fundamentals examination to operator license applicants, (2) thoroughly review every site-specific examination, direct changes as required to achieve NRC standards, and approve the examination before it is given,
- (3) administer and grade the operating test portion of the site-specific examination, including a control room simulator examination and a one-on-one demonstration of specific operating tasks,' and (4) prepare and administer at least one site specific examination annually in each of the NRC's four regions.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice
\
' cc: Representative Ralph Hall 1
i
W ;;
The H:n:r:bla D:n Sch sfir, Chrirman Subcommittee en Energy and Power Committee on Commerce United States House of Representatives -
- Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The NRC has sent the enclosed amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 55 to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. This rulemaking will require facility licensees to prepare the entire initial examination for reactor operators and senior reactor operators and to proctor and grade the written portion of the examination. Facility licensees will be required to submit the examinations and tests to the NRC for review and approval. This rulemaking preserves the NRC's authority to prepare the examinations and tests, as necessary, and enables the NRC to eliminate the use of contractors for the operator licensing program.
Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, requires the NRC to determine the qualifications of individuals applying for an operator license, to prescribe uniform conditions for licensing such individuals, and to issue licenses as appropriate. Operator license applicants are required by 10 CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," to pass an examination satisfying the basic content requirements that are also specified in the regulation. Although the -
. AEA is not specific as to who will prepare and administer the examination, the NRC has traditionally performed these functions through its staff or contract examiners. This final rule requires facility licensees to prepare and administer the' site specific written examinations in recognition of the improvements in industry training programs, to make the operator licensing program more efficient,' and to realize budgetary savings for the Federal Govemment.
Historically, the NRC has spent approximately $3 million annually on contractor support for operator licensing examinations and requalification inspections.
The NRC will continue to (1) prepare and administer the generic fundamentals examination to' j operator license applicants, (2) thoroughly review every site-specific examination, direct i changes as required to achieve NRC standards, and approve the examination before it is given, (3) administer and grade the operating test portion of the site-specific examination, including a control room simulator examination and a one-on-one demonstration of specific operating tasks, and (4) prepare and administer at least one site-specific examination annually in each of the NRC's four regions.
- Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice -!
i cc: Representative Ralpti Hall Distribution. Subj/ central, EDO R/F I l
l DOCUMENT NAME:[G:\GUENTHER\PT55FNL.LTR] ]
To receive e copy of this document indioete in the bar: "C"e Copy udthout ottachment/ enclosure T e Copy with ettschment/ enclosure "W"= No copu OFFICE OCA '
NAME DRathbun ;
DATE / /98 / /98 / /98 / /98 / /98 i i
g i
.The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman L Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety -
Committee on Environment and Public Works
' United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
l l The NRC has sent the enclosed amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 55 to l- the Office of the Federal Register for publication. This rulemaking will require facility licensees i to prepare the entire initial examination for reactor operators and senior reactor operators and
- l. to proctor and grade the written portion of the examination. Facility licensees will be required to i submit the examinations and tests to the NRC for review and approval. This rulemaking l t
preserves the NRC's authority to prepare the examinations and tests, as necessary, and - l enables the NRC to eliminate the use of contractors for the operator licensing program.
Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, requires the NRC to .
)
i determine the qualifications of individuals applying for an operator license, to prescribe uniform l
l conditions for licensing such individuals, and to issue licenses as appr' opriate. Operator license !
applicants are required by 10 CFR Part 55 " Operators' Licenser,," to pass an examination "!
satisfying the basic content requirements that are also specified in the regulation. Although the AEA is not specific as to who will prepare and administer the examination, the NRC has .
traditionally performed these functions through its staff or contract examiners. This final rule j ~ requires facility licensees to prepare and administer the site-specific written examinations in recognition of the improvements in industry training programs, to make the operator licensing i
- l. program more efficient, and to realize budgetary savings for the Federal Govemment. I
( Historically, the NRC has spent approximately $3 million annually on contractor support for I
operator licensing examinations and requalification inspections.
1
! The NRC will continue to (1)' prepare and administer the generic fundamentals examination to l operator license applicants, (2) thoroughly review every site-specific examination, direct l changes as required to achieve NRC standards, and approve the examination before it is given,
- (3) administer and grade the operating test portion of the site-specific examination, including a ;
l ' control room simulator examination and a one-on-one demonstration of specific operating
- tasks, and (4) prepare and administer at least one site-specific examination annually in each of !
. the NRC's four regions. )
(
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director .
Office of Congressional Affairs l
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice ec: Senator Bob Graham I i
1 C
F The Hon:rablo J:mes M. Inhofa, Chrirman
- Subcommittee on CII n Air, Wettrnds, Priv;ta Property and Nuclear Safety
. Committee on Environment and Public Works
- United States Senate '
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
l The NRC has'sent the enclosed amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part 55 to
' the Office of the Federal Register for publication. This rulemaking will require facility licensees i to prepare the entire initial examination for reactor operators and senior reactor operators and j to proctor and grade the written portion of the examination. Facility licensees will be required to !
submit the examinations and tests to the NRC for review and approval. This rulemaking !
preserves the NRC's authority to prepare the examinations and tests, as necessary, and enables the NRC to eliminate the use of contractors for the operator licensing program. i Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, requires the NRC to !
determine the qualifications of individuals applying for an operator license, to prescribe, uniform
= conditions for licensing such individuals, and to issue licenses as appropriate. Operator license !
applicants are required by 10 CFR Part $5, " Operators' Licenses," to pass an examination
. satisfying the basic content requirements that are also specified in the regulation. Although the j AEA is not specific as to who will prepare and administer the examination, the NRC has !
traditionally performed these functions through its staff or contract examiners. This final rule' l requires facility licensees to prepare and administer the site-specific written examinations in recognition of the improvements in industry training programs, to make the operator licensing i program more efficient, and to realize budgetary savings for the Federal Govemment. i Historically, the NRC has spent approximately $3 million annually on contractor support for operator licensing examinations and requalification inspections.
The NRC will continue to (1) prepare and administer the generic fundamentals examination to operator license applicants, (2) thoroughly review every site-specific examination, direct changes as required to achieve NRC standards, and approve the examination before it is given, (3) administer and grade the operating test portion of the site-specific examination, including a control room simulator examination and a one-on-one demonstration of specific operating tasks, and (4) prepare and administer at least one site-specific examination annually in each of the NRC's four regions.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc: Senator Bob Graham Distnbution: Subj/ central, EDO R/F '
!' -nDOCUMENT NAME:[G:\GUENTHER\PT55FNL.LTR) j , h,. . om or moown.nunem. m m. 6or c em mow .n. chm.nu.nce r Ce m .nachmenu.nobsw. Y No copu l OFFICE OCA NAME DRathbun l
DATE / /98 / /98- / /98 / /98 / /98 Public Notice
COMMISSION PUBLISHES FINAL RULE FOR UTILITY ROLE IN INITIAL REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATIONS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has amended its regulations to require that all nuclear power plant licensees prepare, proctor, and grade their initial reactor operator license
' written examinations and prepare their operating tests - all subject to NRC approval.
Reactor operator applicants seeking a license to manipulate the controls of a nuclear
- power plant must pass both a comprehensive, multiple-choice written test and a practical, hands-on examination. The generic fundamentals examination, a separate written test that each applicant must pass to be considered for the fir.4 site-specific license examination, will continue to be written and administered by the NRC.
Historically, either NRC staff examiners or NRC contractors have prepared and administered all operator license tests. In April 1995, the Commission approved a staff proposal to begin a pilot program in which nuclear power plant licensees would prepare the tests under NRC oversight. The Commission took this action in recognition of the improvements in industry training programs, to make the operator licensing program more efficient, and to realize budgetary savings.
All examinations and tests written by utilities and tailored to their specific plants are subject to review, modification, and approval by NRC examiners before the examinations and tests are given. If the submitted examination or test fails to meet NRC's quality standards, the NRC has the option of preparing the test or examinati'sn in lieu of accepting or modifying one prepared by a utility. The NRC will continue to administer and grade the hands-on portion of the test, including a control room simulator examination and a one-on-one demonstration of specific operating tasks.
1
g NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," has been revised to implement the new process; it provides detailed NRC guidance on matters such as the appropriate level of knowledge and difficulty, maintenance of examination security, and
{
restrictions on test preparation by those significantly involved in training the license applicants. J
' The NRC staff will prepare at least one examination annually in each of the agency's t
four regions to ensure that the NRC staff retains, proficiency in examination writing and to serve j as a quality check on the process.
The NRC staff solicited volunteers for a pilot program in August 1995, and launched the program 2 months later. Between October 1995 and the end of September 1997, the staff reviewed and approved 68 operator licensing examinations prepared by utilities in accordance with published NRC guidance. The results of the examinations have been consistent with the results on examinations prepared by the NRC.
Historically, the NRC has spent approximately $3 million annually on contractor support for the operator licensing program. Licensing of operators for research and test reactors who will continue to be examined by the NRC and will be unaffected by this rule. Also unchanged is the present system whereby utilities prepare and administer requalification examinations to licensed operators as part of an NRC-approved training program.
Full details of the final rule are included in a notice published in the I l
edition of the FederalRegister.
I 1
i i
2 i
.