ML20195G832
| ML20195G832 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/30/1998 |
| From: | Veronica Wilson NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Spessard R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E260 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR19868, RULE-PR-55 AF62-2, AF62-2-017, AF62-2-17, NUDOCS 9906160178 | |
| Download: ML20195G832 (73) | |
Text
n R Rig ed $% UNITED STATES - b Elv2.-7
.g ,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pp g
't WASHINGTON, D.C. 205tLM001
'+4
- ,o September 30, 1998 MEMORANDUM TO: R. Lee Spessard, Director Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors Off' e of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
aleria H. Wilson, Director Division of Administrative Services .
Office of Administration SUBJECT OFFICE CONCURRENCE ON FINAL RULE PACKAr'E ENTITLED,
" INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS" The Office of Administration concurs on the final rule that amends Part 55. We have attached a copy of the package that presents our comments.
When this document is forwarded for publication, please include a 3.5 inch diskette that contains a copy of the document in Wordperfect as part of the transmittal package. The diskette will be forwarded to the OFR and the Government Printing Office for their use in typesetting the document.
In order to assist you in preparing the list of documents centrally relevant to this final rule that is required by NRC's regulatory history procedures, you should place the designator "AF62-2"in the upper right-hand corner of each document concerning the final rule that you forward to the Nuclear Documents System.
.f you have any questions, please contact David Meyer,415-7162 (DLM1), or Michael Harrison, 415-6865 (PMH), of the Office of Administration.
Attachment:
As stated l 1
! 9906160178 990608 PDR PR 55 64FR19868 PDR y l
u T70(si tol Y 1
7
?~e ff i
l E
i EQB:- The Commissioners FROM' L. Joseph Callan -
- Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
FINAL RULE'- REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIAL OPERATOR
- i. LICENSING EXAMINATIONS l
PURPOSE:
]
To obtain Commission approval to publish a final amendment to 10 CFR Part 55 allowing, rather than requiring, power reactor facility licensees to prepare the initial operator licensing examinations and to publish a related revision to the Enforcement Policy. I
SUMMARY
i From October 1995 to April 1996, the NRC conducted a voluntary pilot program to evaluate the feasibility of transferring responsibility for preparing the initial operator licensing written examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.43 and the operating tests required by ,
10 CFR 55.45 from the NRC to power reactor facility licensees. Based on the success of the pilot program, the Commission directed the staff to continue the revised examination process on a voluntary basis and to develop a plan to amend 10 CFR Part 55 so that all power reactor
, . facility licensees would be required to prepare their own examinations. Upon evaluating the l - rulemaking plan, including the pros and cons associated with implementing the r;evised process l - on en industrywide basis, the Commission directed the staff to proceed with the rulemaking while continuing to monitor the results of the facility-prepared examinations.
Although the staff had considered the possibility of implementing the revised examination L process by issuing a generic letter rather than amending 10 CFR Part 55, that attemative was dismissed because variations in the level of participation would have complicated resource planning over the long term and because the staff considered it more appropriate to impose
. generic requirements through rulemaking. The staff recognized that the proposed rulemaking
- would impose new requirements on facility licensees but opined that the backfit rule, l 10 CFR 50.109, did not apply. However, upon further review suing the proposed CONTACT:
Robert Gallo, NRR 301-415-1031 .
I
rulemaking, the staff has concluded that requiring all facility licensees to prepare their own examinatior could be considered a backfit and that there is insufficient basis to document a finding that k.ragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of 10 CFR 50.109 are inapplicable and a backfit analysis is not required. Consequently, the staff has decided to implement the provisions of the proposed rule on a voluntary basis, which would not constitute a backfit. The merits of the l revised examination development process support proceeding with a rule change that gives l facility licensees the option to prepare their own examinations, rather than terminating the pilot program and resuming the NRC-prepared examination process on an industrywide basis.
BACKGROUND:
On March 24,1995, the staff informed the Commission of its intent to revise the operator l licensing piogram to allow greater participation by facility licensees and to eliminate contractor assistance in this area (SECY-95-075, " Proposed Changes to the NRC Operator Licensing Program"). The staff's proposal was motivated by the generalimprovement in the performance ;
level of power reactor facility licensees' training programs, the NRC's continuing efforts to streamline the functions of the Federal Government, and the need to accommodate anticipated resource reductions. In a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated April 18,1995, the Commission approved the staff's proposal to initiate a transition process to revise the operator ,
licensing program and directed the staff to consider carefully the experience 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 process for developing examinations, and soliciting volunteers to participate in pilot examinations to evaluate and refine the methodology.
Between October 1,1995, and April 5,1996, the NRC staff reviewed, approved, and edministered 22 operator licensing examinations using the revised process. The staff
%mentc"1 the results of the pilot examinations in SECY-96-123, " Proposed Changes to the MC Operator Licensing Program," and briefed the Commission on June 18,1996. In an SRM dated July 23,1996, the Commission directed the staff to prepare a rulemaking plan to justify the changes to 10 CFR Part 55 and to present additional information on a number of issues 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 revised examination process.' On September 25,1996, the NRC staff issued SECY-96-206, "Rulemaking Plan for Amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 To Change Licensed Operator Examination Requirements." Upon Commission approval of the rulemaking plan in an SRM dated December 17,1996, the staff prepared the proposed rulemaking (SECY-97-079, dated April 8,1997), which was approved with modifications in an SRM dated June 26,1997, and published in the Federal Register on August 7,1997 (62 FR 42426). When the comment period expired on October 21,1997,11 comment letters had been received; 2 more arrived after the expiration date. The 13 comment letters and NRC's responses are summarized in the Statements of Consideration of the final rule (Attachment 2).
DISCUSSION:
From the time the pilot program began in October 1995 through the end of June 1998, the NRC staff reviewed, approved, and administered a total of 102 examinations that were voluntarily developed by facility licensees in accordance with the NRC's examination criteria and guidance.
I i
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 l 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 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, and approved the examinations and tests before they were administered. NRC examiners independently administered all of the operating tests, reviewed the grading of the written examinations, and made the final licensing recommendations for approval by NRC management pursuant to 10 CFR 55.51.
Pilot Process Effectiveness The NRC's review of the 102 examinations revealed that 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 of difficulty. In some cases, the examinations were delayed for a period of time in order for the NRC staff to evaluate the examin~ations and review the facility licensee's 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 terms of quality and level of difficulty, to examinations prepared by the NRC before and since 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 expectationsjnd gained experience in preparing the examinations, some of the proposed examinations continue to require more changes than anticipated. The staff's expectations l regarding the quality and level of difficulty of the proposed examinations submitted for NRC j review have not yet been achieved. (Attachment 1 contains a discussion of this issue and the j actions that are being taken to address it.) 1
,- The average passing rates for reactor operators (ROs) and senior reactor operators (SROs) on l both the written and operating portions of the 102 facility-prepared examinations administered through the end of June 1998 were only slightly lower than the corresponding passing rates on the examinations administered during fiscal year (FY) 1995, the last year in which all of the examinations were prepared by the NRC or its contractors. However, the average passing rates were consistent with the range of passing rates for FYs 1990 through 1994. This supports the NRC staff's conclusion that the facility-prepared examinations, revised as directed by the NRC, are comparable to NRC-prepared examinations. The examinations are discriminating at a conservative and acceptable level (i.e., the average level of difficulty has not ,
declined). (Attachment 1 contains a detailed summary and analysis of the examination results.)
Pilot Process Efficiency With regard to the efficiency of the revised examination process, the experience to date suggests that the average industry cost will not be significantly diiferent from what it would be if the NRC prepared the licensing examinations. Feedback from the industry reflects that the cost ,
for some facility licensees was higher than it would have been for an NRC-prepared l j
f 8 4
examination; other licensees, however, were able to prepare acceptable quality examinations at l 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) will be under the control of facility licensees if they elect to prepare their own j examinations. Those facility licensees that submit acceptable quality examinations are likely to j save resources despite the additional 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 low-quality examination should serve as an incentive for facility licensees to submit acceptable quality examinations. (Attachment 3 contains 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 rogram. 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.
The increased efficiency of the revised examination process has enabled the NRC to eliminate the use of contractors in the operator licensing program and to administer the initial operator licensing and requalification inspection programs with the existing NRC staff. Before initiating the pilot examination and transition process at the beginning of 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 reflect the complete elimination of contractor support for the operator licensing program (with the exception of the generic fundamentals examination).
l (Attachments 1 and 3 contain additional analysis of the NRC resource burden.)
Backfit As written, the proposed rulemaking would have required all power reactor facility licensees to prepare their written operator licensing examinations required by 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.43 and the operating tests required by 10 CFR 55.45. Although the proposed rulemaking did impose new requirements on facility licensees, the NRC had taken the position that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, did not apply because the shift in responsibility for preparing the examinations l would not: (1) constitute a " modification of the procedures required to operate a facility" within the scope of the backfit rule; (2) affect the basic procedures for qualifying licensed operators; or (3) require facility licensees to alter their organizational structures,
l In its review of the final rulemaking, the Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) stated that the staff had not demonstrated its basis to support that position. Therefore, the l CRGR recommended that the provisions of the proposed rule be implemented on a voluntary g '
basis, which would not constitute a backfit. ydPMqthe staff had considered and dismissed that $hy alternative during the proposed rulemaking, it has since concluded that the benefits of the revised examination process (e.g., improved regulatory efficiency and greater licensee control over the examination costs) remain substantial even if every facility licensee is not required to prepare its own examinations. Rather than terminate the pilot program and resume the NRC-prepared examination process on an industrywide basis, the staff has decided to amend the final rule to give facility licensees the option to prepare their own examinations or to have them prepared by the NRC. In that regard, this action is consistent with a comment made by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in response to the proposed rulemaking that the industry would prefer to continue the voluntary process because it would allow flexibility for those power reactor facility licensees with small training staffs.
Resources Under a voluntary process, the NRC staff's ability to meet the examination demands and 6 schedu/g needs of facility licensees will depend on the number of licensees that elect to prepare the!r own examinations. For purposes of comparison, the average NRC-prepared examination requires somewhat more than half an FTE (full-time equivalent) to prepare, administer, and document, while the average facility-prepared examination requires about one-
-third of an FTE to review, administer, and document. Therefore, with the 17 FTEs that are currently budgeted for the initial examination program in FYs 1999 and 2000, the NRC staff l would be able prepare about 30 to 35 examinations per year, while it would be able review about 50 to 55 facility-prepared examinations. During the two full years in which facility licensees have been allowed to prepare their examinations under the voluntary pilot program, the level of industry participation has ranged from about 75 percent (41/55) in FY 1997 to about 90 percent (50/56) in FY 1998. Therefore, if the current level of industry participation is maintained, the staff expects that it will be able to satisfy most facility licensees' examination demands and scheduling needs.
To manage the workload, the NRC staff will resume issuing an annual Administrative Letter that
- will request facility licensees to report their anticipated examination needs for the next four fiscal years and their intentions with regard to preparing each examination. Moreover, the staff intends to work with NEl in an effort to prioritize and coordinate the examination schedule, address workload conflicts, and promote facility participation in the examination development process.
As discussed in SECY-96-206 and SECY 97-079, the NRC staff has focused additional attention on examination security. Therefore, the staff has amended 10 CFR 55.,49 in the final rule to ensure that applicants, licensees, and facility licensees understand the scope of the regulation with regard to the integrity of examinations and tests. Moreover, the staff has revised the final rule to require facility licensees that elect to prepare their own operator licensing examinations to establish procedures to control 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
.. a NRC Enforcement Actions," to address enforcement action relative to the requirements in 10 CFR 55.49 (refer to Attachment 4). As a separate action, the NRC will delay any examination that may have been compromised until the scope of the potential compromise is determined j and measures can be taken to address the integrity and validity of the examination. i Conclusion i
I The NRC staff has concluded that the revised examination process is both effective and efficient, even if it is implemented on a voluntary basis; The staff has reviewed the vulnerabilities discussed in SECY-96-206 (i.e., quality and consistency, independence and public perception, examination security, NRC resource, program stability, and examiner proficiency) and evaluated the measures that have been taken to mitigate the vulnerabilities.
(Attachment 1 contains a summary analysis of each vulnerability and the potential effects on reactor safety.) The revised program gives 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 this. The final rule will require facility licensees that elect to prepare their examinations to follow the same guidelines that the NRC staff will use to prepare the examinations at nonparticipating facilities (i.e., the revision of NUREG-1021 that was in effect six months before the date of the examinations). NRC license examiners will review each facility-prepared 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 not approve those examinations that do 'not meet NRC standards and, to the extent that facility employees do not follow the examination criteria in NUREG-1021 or NRC-approved attematives, will address deficiepcies in the submitted examinations as licensee performance issues, Moreover, swfcekhe NRC has discontinued the kpk use of contractors, NRC examiners will directly observe and daluate 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 gain more experience in a shorter time.
The revised examination process is more consistent with the NRC's other oversight programs i because it requires NRC examiners to review materials prepared by facility licensees and holds facility licensees responsible for the quality of those materials. The revised process has enabled NRC examiners to focus more on the psychometric quality of the 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 the NRC. This shift in the NRC examiners' focus, coupled with the facility licensees' technical expertise, has the potential to improve the overall quality of the facility-prepared licensing
~
examinations.
-.9 COORDINATION:
L The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has no legal objection to this final rulemaking. The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) has reviewed the final rulemaking and endorses implementing the revised examination process on a voluntary basis. The Office of the i
r
i ,
- Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this Commission paper for resource impacts and has no objections. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed the version of this rulemaking that would have required all power reactor facility licensees to prepare their l
licensing examinations and recommended the following: (1) that the rulemaking should be issued for use by the industry, and (2) that the staff should analyze the results of the pilot examinations to ensure that the quality and level of difficulty of the examinations are consistent across the regions. The staff has completed the recommended analysis and discussed the results in Attachment 1. The staff has also offered the ACRS the opportunity to review the revised final rulemaking, but the offer was declined.
RECOMMENDATIONS-That the Commission
- 1. Anorove the notice of final rulemaking (Attachment 2) for publication in the Federal
. Register.
- 2. Certify that this rule, if promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a j l
substantial number of small entities to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,5 U.S.C. 605(b).
l
- 3. Determine that neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment need be prepared because this proposed rule is eligible for a categorical exclusion as defined in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1).
- 4. Ngie 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 information collection requirements in the proposed rule have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the additional information collection requirement in the final rule (i.e.,10 CFR 55.40(b)(2)) is subject to review by OMB.
- c. A regulatory analysis has been prepared (Attachment 3).
- d. A revision to the enforcement policy has been prepared (Attachment 4).
- 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 (Attachment 5).
- g. A public announcement will be issued when the final rulemaking is filed with the Office of the Federal Register (Attachment 6).
[ ..
- h. Copies of the notice of final rulemaking and final Revision 8 of NUREG-1021,
" Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," will be distributed to all facility licensees.
l L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Attachments: As stated (6)
I 1
l l
l
, l rlp
[7590-01-P]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 55 RIN 3150-AF62 l
Initial Licensed Operator Examination Requirements AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)is amending _its regulations to allow y /
nuclear power facility licensees to prepare, proctor, and grade the written examination req 0lre ff $t ~ !
-by iv u u g , ou 55.4 angprepare th[e operating tests (eq'6irM iG Om 5{
NRC uses to evaluate the competence of individuals applying for operator licenses at those plants. The amendment requires facility licensees that elect to prepare the examinations t[
pare the examinations in accordance witGJRCG-102 gperator/icensing
/xaminationfandardsf$owef eactors; stablish, implement, and rnaintain procedures to control examination security and integrity; mit, upon approval by an authorized representative of the facility licensee, each examination and test to the NRC for review and approval; and clor and grade the written examinations upon approv h The amendment preserves the NRC's authority to prepare the examinations and tests in lieu of licensees and to exercise its discretion and reject a power reactor facility licensee's determination to prepare, proctor, and grade the written examinations and prepare the operating tests. The Commission is concerned with examination integrity; therefore, the
4 l
/
H pt Hjhf',42 } to ensure that applicants, licensees, and facility amendment will also revise l j
licensees understand the scope of the regulation.
1 l
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on (insert the date 180 days from date of )
publication in the Feders/ Register).
l
.i 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: l 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 l l
I
' uniform conditions for licensing these individuals, and to issue licenses as appropriate.
Pursuant to the AEA,10 CFR Part 55 requires an applicant for an operator license to pass an i
examination that satisfies the basic content requirements specified in the regulation. Although 1 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 i
- NRC and its contract examiners have used the guidance.in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing l Examination Standards for Power Reactors," once titled " Operator Licensing Examiner i>
l Standards," to prepare the initial operator licensing examinations, This document has been I
E
o L 3 revised as experience has been acquired in preparing the examinations. The current version is designated Revision 8.'
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 inate the useof its inte Nb of contractors by allowing facility licensees to prepare the examinations. The taffs proposal was motivated by the general improvement in the performance level of power reactor facility licensees' training programs, the NRC's continuing efforts to streamline the functions of the Federal Govemment, and the need to accommodate anticipated resource reductions.
On April 18,1995, the Commission approved the NRC staffs proposal to initiate a transition process to revise the operator licensing program and directed the NRC staff to j consider carefully the experience from pilot examinations before fully implementing the j 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 '
l l
soliciting volunteers to participate in pilot examinations to evaluate and refine the methodology. I 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 l l
tests, prepared by facility licensees as part of a pilot program. These examinations were
- 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 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 internet at http://www.nrc. gov.
L
F 4
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 1
Changes to the NRC Operator Licensing Program," dated June 10,1996. Based on the results I of the pilot program, the NRC staff recommended that the Commission approve the 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. On July 23,1996, the Commission authorized the staff to continue the pilot examination process on a voluntary basis and directed the staff to develop a rulemaking plan to justify the changes that i
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 i i
examination process to facilitate a Commission decision on whether to implement the revised process on an industrywide basis.
With Commission approval, the NRC staff resumed conducting pilot-style examinations on August 19,1996, and by the end of June 1998 had reviewed, approved, and administered 80 additional examinations that were devebped by facility licensees. This raised the total number of examinations completed using the pilot process to 102.
On September 25,1996, the NRC staff forwarded the rulemaking plan and a response l
to the additional items to the Commission in SECY-96-206, "Rulemaking Plan for Amendments !
to 10 CFR Part 55 to Charige Licensed Operator Examination Requirements." SECY-96-206 identified a number of areas (i.e., quality and consistency, independence and public perception, j examination security, NRC resources, program stability, and examiner proficiency) in which the l I
i NRC could be more vulnerable under the revised examination process and described the l
p
! 5 measures that the NRC has taken to manage the vulnerabilities. On December 1,7,1996, the Commission directed the staff to proceed with the proposed rulemaking. Th s ff forwarded 1-
~ the proposed rule (SECY-97-079, " Proposed Rule - Initial Licensed Operator Examination Requirements") to the Commission on April 8,1997, and on June 26,1997, the Commission approved publication of the proposed rule for a 75-day comment period. The prop sed:r0le was published in the FederalRegister(62 FR 42426) on Y . August 7,1997 ;-
W comment period expired on October 21,- 1997,11 comment letters received. Two additional comment letters arrived after the expiration date but were also considered in the J
. development of the final ruleg As written, the proposed rule . would have required all power reactor facility licensees to prepare their operator licensing examinations and to# proctor and grade the written portion of those examinations. Although the proposed rule ould have imposed new requirements on facility licensees, the NRC took the position that the backfit rule,10 CFR 50.109, did not apply because the shift in responsibility for preparing the examinations would not: (1) constitute a " modification of the procedures required to operate a facility" within the scope of the backfit rule; (2) affect the basic procedures for qualifying licensed operators; or (3)
{
require facility licensees to alter their organizational structures. However, based upon further review issuing the proposed ru'n e NRC has concluded that there is insufficient basis to support the, briginal position. ' Therefore, the NRC has decided to revise the final
/ y/
rule o m,et power reactor facility licensees may elect to prepare their written examinations and operating tests an'd proctor and grade the written examinations) in accordance with NUREG-1021 r to have the NRC prepare the examinations, thereby making a I
backfit analysis unnecessary. l 1
l l
l
,. -i 6
Discussion l .
The pilot examinations' demonstrated that the revised process, under which facility licensees prepare the written examinations and operating tests, is generally effective and efficient. From the time the pilot program began in October 1995 through the end of June 1998, the NRC staff reviewed, approved, and administered a total of 102 examinations that were voluntarily developed by facility licensees under the pilot examination and transition program.
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 submitted examinations and tests were deficient, ,l 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 recommendations for approval by NRC management. j Comments from the NRC chief examiners who evaluated the pilot examinations indicate j l
that the quality and level of difficulty of the licensee-prepared examinations (when modified as directed by the NRC) were generally comparable to the examinations prepared by the NRC (i.e., by the staff or NRC contractors).' The passing rate on the 102 pilot-style examinations !
I administered through the end of June 1998 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 L
F , ,
l
, 3-i 7
I 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 l
rates is not significant. The average grades on the facility-prepared, NRC-approved written examinations were also comparable if slightly lower than the grades on examinations prepared 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 examination process is effective, Therefore, the fact that some facility licensees will be preparing the examinations with NRC review and approval, should have no negative effect on the safe operation of the plants.
I' l
Although the NRC-approved examinations were comparable to NRC-prepared I . 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.
Consequently, the NRC has asked the industry to address the issue of examination quality and determine the need for additional training on examination development. The NRC will continue to: (1) direct facility licensees that prepare their examinations to revise the examinations as j~ necessary to achieve an acceptable level of quality and discrimination; (2) withhold approval of
. those examinations that do not meet NRC standards; (3) oversee the regional implementation L
f L i
8 of the operator licensing process to ensure consistency; (4) address significant deficiencies in f
- the submitted examinations as licensee performance issues in the examination reports, as appropriate; (5) conduct or participate in workshops, as necessary, to ensure that facility licensees understand the NRC's examination criteria; and (6) prepare the licensing examinations for those facility licensees that elect not to prepare their own examinations.
With regard to the efficiency of the revised examination process, the 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 examination was higher than it would have been for an NRC-prepared examination; however, other licensees prepared good quality examinations at lower cost than the NRC. The industry generally attributed the higher cost to the revised examination and administrative criteria under the pilot examination process. Although the NRC 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 licensees that elect to prepare the examinations will be able to manage the size and quality of )
their examination banks and the training and experience of the personnel they select to write their licensing examinations. The revised examination process allows facility licensees to control the development of the examinations and holds them responsible for their quality, if a facility licensee submits an acceptable quality examination, it is likely to save resources despite the additional administrative criteria; however, if the facility licensee submits an examination j
that requires many changes, it will likely cost more than if the NRC had prepared the l examination.
Comments from the NRC chief examiners who worked on the pilot examinations I
p
-, ..t 9
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 programn Although a number (approximately 20 percent in FY 1997) of the examinations 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. The increased efficiency of the revised examination process has enabled the NRC to eliminate the use of contractors in the operator licensing program and conduct the initial operator licensing and requalification inspection programs with the existing NRC staff. Before initiating the pilot examination and transition process at the beginning of FY 1996, the NRC spent approximately $3 million per year on contractor assistance for initial examinations and requalification inspections. In FY 1997, when facility licensees prepared approximately 75 percent of the examinations, 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 reflect the complete elimination of contractor support for the operator liceming program (with the exception of the generic fundamentals examination). Future resource requirements for the operator licensing program will, in large part, be driven by changes in the level of facility participation in the voluntary examination
- development process.
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 compromises the integrity of any application, tests, or examination required by 10 CFR 55. The Commission considers the integrity of an examination to be " compromised"if any activity occurs that could 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
10 on several 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 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 clarify the scope of the regulation and to amend the final examination rule to require facility licensees that elect to prepare the examinations to establish procedures to control examination security and integrity. Revision 8 of 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 examination, facility employees are 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 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 concerns to NRC management. If the NRC determines during its preparation that an examination may have been compromised, it will not administer the examination until the scope of the potential compromise is determined and
F 11
/
measures can be taken to address the integrity and validity of)he examination. Pursuant to
, 10 CFR 55.51, the NRC must make a determination.pri0r$o issuing a license that the test or
.y examination is valid, meeting the requirements of the AEA and the Commission's regulations.' If the compromise is discovered after the examination has been administ ' , the NRC will not Y
complete the licensing action for the affected applicants until th _ can make a determination
/
- regarding the validity of the examination. If the compromise is not discovered until after L
licensing action is complete, the NRC will reevaluate the licensing decisio .
ermines that the originallicensing decision was based on an invalid examinati n a appropriate action pursuant to 10 CFR 55.61(b)(2).
As a separate measure, the NRC will evaluate potential examination compromises to determine if a violation of 10 CFR 55.49 has occurred. The Commission is modifying NUREG-1600, Revision 1, " General Statement of Policy and Procedures for NRC Enforcement Actions," (Enforcement Policy) to provide examples of violations that may be used as guidance in determining the appropriate severity level for violations involving the compromise of an examination. A compromise that is not detected before the test or examination is administered would be considered a significant regulatory concem and categorized at least at Severity Level lli. However, depending on the circumstances as explained in the Enforcement Policy, the severity level may be increased or decreased. The NRC intends to utilize its enforcement
. authority including, as warranted, civil penalties and orders against individuals and facility licensees who: (1) compromise the integrity of an examination in violation of 10 CFR 55.49; (2) commit deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5; or (3) provide incomplete or inaccurate information to the NRC in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. In addition, cases involving willful violations may be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
The Commission has reviewed the vulnerabilities and costs associated with the revised
'. J
E )
4 e
12 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 j acknowledges that the effectiveness of the revised examination process is contingent on the i
NRC staff's review of the facility-proposed examinations to ensure that NRC standards are l
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 the examinations that are administered to the license applicants will provide a valid and consistent basis upon which to make the licensing decisions regardless of whether the examinations were prepared by the facility licensee or the NRC. The Commission also realizes that the frequency of examination security incidents and the risk of undetected compromises may increase for those examinations that are prepared by facility licensees. However, the ,
y Commission is confident that the measures discussed above will sufficiently control the jY#.
vulnerability in this areal The Commission is aware that the original expectation that facilityf 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 by facility 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,
13 coupled with the facility licensees' technical expertise, has the potential to improve the overall
/
quality of the facility-prepared licensing' examinations, a
in the proposed rules',,,hhe NRC took the position that the backfit rule (10 CFR 50.109) did not apply to this rulemaking. However, in its review of the final rule, the Committee' To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) opined that it was inclined .dagas to view the rulc a backfit and recommended that the provisions of the pro os rule be implemented on a voluntary basis, which would not constitute a backfit. t e NRC had considered and dismissed that alternative during the proposed rulemaking because of concerns regarding resource planning, it has since concluded that the benefits of the revised examination process (e.g., improved regulatory efficiency and greater licensee control over the examination costs) remain substantial even if every facility licensee is not required to prepare its own examinations.
Rather than terminate the pilot program and resume the NRC-prepared examination process on an industrywide basis, the NRC has decided to amend the final rule to give facility licensees the option to prepare their own examinations or to have them prepared by the NRC.
Summary of Public Comments The 75-day public comment period began when the notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal 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 implementation guidance in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, and on the following two
. 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
F 1
14 l
- 2. Is the conclusion in the regulatory analysis correct that it would be less costly for 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 i
licensed operators with the costs to be reimbursed by licensee fees? I i
I 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 1
included three NRC examiners, one contract examiner, five nuclear utilities and one utility I employee, one nonpower reactor facility licensee, the State of Illinois, and the Nuclear Energy i
Institute (NEI), which submitted its comments on behalf of the nuclear power industry. Copies of the public comments are available in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC, and on the intemet at "http://ruleforum.llnl. gov /cgi-bin / )
I 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 Illincis) recommended that the rule change be disapproved. Five of the industry respondents (NEl and four utilities) supported the q l
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 because it would allow greater flexibility for those facility licensees with small training staffs. However, they would support mandatory participation with the rule change rather than return to the previous process under which NRC contractors wrote most of the examinations.
Those comments related to the two specific questions raised in the proposed rule nd those that have a direct bearing on the rule are discussed below. The comments are categorized as they relate to reactor safety and the vulnerabilities discussed in i
t' 15 SECY-96-206 (i.e., quality and consistency, independence and public perception, security, NRC resources, and examiner proficiency). NRC received 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 Attachment 1 of the l Commission (SECY) paper associated with this rulemaking. A copy of the SECY is available in the NRC Public Document Room, on the internet at http://www.nrc. gov, or from Siegfried Guenther, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at 301-415-1056 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.
Resoonse: 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 facilitier.
Comment: Seven of the 13 respondents (NEl, two utilities, a utility employee, and three 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 I
1 I
16 prepares the examinations. However, NEl and another utility agreed that comparing the cost of facility-prepared examinations to those prepared by the NRC is difficult, but they concluded that it should be less costly for facility licensees 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 that would have required all power reactor facility licensees to prepare their licensing examinations. 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 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 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.
Resoonse: The NRC acknowledges that the revised administrative criteria in particular I
(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 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.
17 However, when the NRC first developed the revised examination process, with its additional i 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 an acceptable 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 -
s
- 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.
. With 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: (1) clarify the intent of 10 CFR 55.49 in the final rule; (2) amend the final examination rule to require facility licensees that elect to prepare their examinations to establish, implement, and
'i maintain procedures to control examination security and integrity; and (3) include additional l security guidance in the final version of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021. These actions will help -
1 1
'j
)
18 ensure, among other things, that facility licensees understand their responsibility for maintaining
~
control over the examination process.
The pilot examinations demonstrated that some of the people assigned by facility licensees 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 restrictions in the final version of Revision 8 of NUREC-1021 in an effort to reduce the burden on facility 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 applicants once they begin working on the licensing examination (as was the case in interim Revision 8). This change should provide licensees that elect to prepare their examinations with increased flexibility in managing their resources and possibly reduce their costs without adversely affecting the independence of 1
the examination process, i i
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. j 1
These criteria are retained in the final version of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021.
~ .
L 1 l- )
g 4 .
19 The issue of cost has lost much of its importance because the NRC has decided to l
continue the revised examination process on a voluntary basis rather than require each power reactor facility licensee to prepare the examinations.: It will be up to each facility licensee to compare the cost of preparing its own examinations in accordance with the criteria in the effective revision of NUREG-1021 with the cost of having the NRC staff prepare the
' examinations and then make a decision based on its available resources (and other considerations).
' Comment:- Two NRC examiners with pilot-examination experience asserted that the i quality of the simulator and walk-through tests has decreased significantly and that, in most cases, the quality and difficulty of the submitted examinations have been below NRC standards.
All four examiners who submitted comments 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 examiners, including: (1) the facility licensees' tendency to narrow the scoe of the operating test to those procedures that the Ucility believes are important (and' emphasized in the training program); and (2) the belief that most facility training personnel do not have the expertise to develop valid test items. Two NRC examiners asserted that the quality of the
. examinations has not improved during 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 i
preparing an examination once every 18 to 24 months will not foster consistency or develop skilled examination writers.
Two NRC examiners asserted that the elimination of NRC contract examiners who participated in examinations across the four NRC regions will be detrimental to examination 4 consistency. One NRC examiner asserted that the guidance in interim Revision 8 of
r, 20 ;
NUREG-1021 !s not sufficiently prescriptive to ensure nationwide consistency in the level of knowledge 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 l 1
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-
~
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 and many required significant changes to make them conform to the NRC's standards for quality and level of difficulty. According to the questionnaires completed by the NRC chief 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 cxaminers judged the final examinations (with the NRC's changes incorporated) to be j comparable to recent NRC-prerr ed examinations in terms of quality and level of difficulty.
Moreover, the fact that the passing rate on the facility-prepared examinations is generally
. 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.
. Although the NRC expected that the proposed examination quality would improve as
21
. 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 improve the quality of their second or third examination submittals, the quality of the other facility licensees'second or third examinstions was lower. Although it is unclear to what extent -
the problems with proposed examination quality and difficulty have been caused by a lack of 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 l
public meetings and workshops in an effort to communiciste its expectations to the facility l
' employees who will be preparing the examinations. Additional NRC and industry workshops s
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.
I
-The NRC staff's comprehensive examination reviews versus the examination criteria in NUREG-1021, in combination with supervisory reviews and the examination oversight activities i
i 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 examination ,
writers should eventually enhance the quality and consistency of the facility-prepared examinations. !
Comment. Aii four examiners who submitted comments, a nonpower reactor facility l
4 licensee, and the State of Illinois asserted that allowing the facility licensees to prepare the
22 operator licensing examinations decreases the level of independence and creates a conflict of l
l interest for facility personnel having responsibility for training and licensing the operators. Their l
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-win situation because if applicants fail the examination, the managers look like poor trainers, I
l and if the examination is too easy, the NRC gives them a bad report. He and another NRC examiner asserted,- based on their experience during the pilot examinations, that some facility personnel openly admitted that they would develop the easiest possible examination te ensure that all their applicants would pass.
One NRC examiner noted that the NRC review and approval process cannot adequately I
compensate for the conflict-of-interest problems inherent in the revised examination process and recommended a change to interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 that would limit the i
licensees' latitude in selecting topics for the examination outline. The State of Illinois suggested that the NRC should compile 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 NRC included a number of measures in Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, including restrictions on which facility employees can develop the examination and a performance-based review of
m
)
.- I 23 every 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 development based solely on the amount of time they spent training the license applicants (as l
discussed above in response to comments concerning the industry burden under the revised 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
_ questions related to the topics in which they provided instruction. Moreover, as a separate measure, the NRC has amended the final version of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 to include an expectation that facility licensees will use an objective, systematic process for preparing the j i
written examination outline. This process enhancement should further limit the potential for bias in the selection of topics to be evaluated on the written examination.
1 The Commission has concluded that the amended personnel restrictions, in combination with the systematic selection of topics for the written examination and the continued L independent selection of topics for the operating test, will establish a sufficient level of 1
l independence to address the vulnerability associated with the conflict of interest inherent in the l
revised examination process. However, if the NRC determines that a facility licensee has i
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 would pass the examination, the NRC will utilize its enforcement authority including, as warranted, civil penalties, orders against the individuals involved, and, charging the individuals involved with deliberate misconduct pursuant to 10 CFR 50.5.
Concerns regarding the potential for conflict of interest and the frequency of security
! incidents since beginning the pilot examination program have prompted the NRC to review the l'
24 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 clarify its intent and to amend the examination rule to require power reactor facility licensees that elect to prepare their licensing examinations to establish procedures to control examination security and integrity.
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 have documented problems with security.
Resoonse: As discussed in SECY-96-206 and SECY-97-079, 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: (1) clarified 10 CFR 55.49 in the final rule to l l
ensure that applicants, licensees, and facility licensees understand the scope and intent of the regulation; (2) amended the final examination rule to require facility licensees that elect to prepare their licensing examinations to establish, implement, and maintain procedures to I
control examination security and integrity; (3) strengthened the discussion of examination l security in the final version of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021; and (4) modified NUREG-1600, l
" 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 i
I
p 1 4
I 25 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 {
q I arrangements are confirmed with the designated facility contact. Furthermore, the NRC has j 1
issued an Information Notice to advise power reactor facility licensees of the NRC's perspective ')
and expectations regarding the integrity of examinations developed by the facility licensees' employees and representatives, and it has asked NEl to take the initiative in developing a model for securing examinations.
As a separate action, the NRC will not administer any examination that may have been 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
- after the examination has been administered, the NRC will not complete the licensing action for ,
i the affected applicants until the staff can make a determination regarding the impact that the j compromise has had on the examination process. If the compromise is not discovered until -l after the licensing action is complete, the NRC will reevaluate the licensing decision pursuant to l 10 CFR 55.61(b)(2) if it determines that the original licensing decision was based on an invalid i
-vamination.
4 Comment One NRC examiner disagreed with the conc!usion 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 !
standards (as discussed above) and that it has taken a signif; cant effort on the part of the NRC chief examiner to achieve an acceptable product.
An NRC contract examiner asserted that NRC cost-saving is a poor reason for changing
o 26 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 I . are left will become more dissatisfied with their jobs 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 l
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-97-079, the NRC has issued a memorandum to its regional administrators emphasizing i the importance of: (1) assigning adequate resources to carry out the operator licensing task; (2) completing a review of every facility-prepared examination; and (3) not administering any examination that fails to meet NRC standards for quality and level of difficulty. Furthermore, all the time that NRC examiners spend reviewing an examination and modifying it so that it meets NRC standards is ultimately billed to the facility licensee. )
The Commission acknowledges that facility licensees bear the cost of preparing the licensing examinations whether or not the NRC performs this function. However, this rule will give facility licensees more control over the cost of licensing operators at their facility, and the pilot examination program has demonstrated that some facility licensees will save resources if they elect to prepare their own licensing examinations.
The NRC's budget cuts have necessitated agencywide downsizing, which can be expected to increase the burden of travel for many NRC employees, not just the operator I licensing examiners. The number of NRC full time equivalent (FTE) license examiners has i
w 3 <;
27 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.
l l
Comment: Two NRC examiners expressed concern that examinerproficiency will l l
decrease as a result of implementing the revised examination process. One of the examiners 1
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 facility-prepared examination j l before it is administered to ensure that it conforms to the criteria specified in NUREG'-1021 for i
content, format, quality, and level of knowledge and difficulty. NRC examiners will also i l continue to independently administer and grade both the dynamic simulator and the plant walk-P through portions of the operating tests. Because NRC examiners will be administering all of the 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 j l ' 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 c;ualification process. Moroover, the NRC will ensure that the in-house capability to prepare the examinations is maintained by: (1) requiring a regional supervisor to review and approve every examination and the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to conduct periodic examination
, reviews; (2) conducting examiner refresher training; and (3) convening an operator licensing examiners' training conference at intervals not to exceed 24 months. Although experience during the voluntary pilot program and informal feedback from the industry suggests that facility
I l
..- j 28 licensees are likely to request the NRC to prepare a sufficient number of examinations to maintain the proficiency of its examiners, each region will be required to write at least one initial
- operator licensing examination per calendar year.
1 Comment: A utility employee asserted that the revised examination process will not i-l 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 l
conclusion in the proposed rulemaking that the NRC staff's focus on operator performance and 1 i 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 l
previously paying to the NRC through the fee recovery program to secure the additional
. personnel to do the extra work or request the NRC to prepare the examinations.' If a facility ,
_ licensee decides to prepare the examination and, as a result, places insufficient resources on
- either training or testing, the quality of its proposed licensing examinations or the passing rate y ' on those examinations would most likely suffer Although many of the facility-prepared i
- examinations have required significant changes to achieve NRC quality standards, the examination results, to date, are generally consistent with the results on previous NRC-l
29 prepared examinations, suggesting that the quality of the facility licensees' training programs has not been affected. Therefore, the fact that facility licensees will have the option of .
, 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 the possibility of inconsistency, but it believes that the examination criteria in the final version of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, in combination with the NRC's examination oversight programs, will minimize these 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
. the procedures that will be exercised during the walk-through portion of the operating test and during the simulator scenarios.
r,- i
)
30 Other Comments l
Since beginning the pilot examination program, the NRC has sought to obtain up-to-date insights regarding the effectiveness of the revised examination process based on the staff's ;
I growing body of experience in reviewing the facility-prepared examinations. Many of the staff J
comments received have paralleled the public comments and require no further attention in this notice. However, one recommendation to amend the 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 wou!d be in a position to ensure that the facility licensee's operations and training departments apply sufficient resources to prepare a quality examination. The NRC finds that the recommendation is consistent with normal NRC practice and the analogous regulatory requirement in 955.31(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 the final examination rule has been amended to require an authorized representative of the facility licensee to 4 l approve the written examinations and operating tests before they are submitted to the NRC for review and approval. 1 i
l Availability of Guidance Document for Preparing Operator Licensing Examinations a
- ' 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, t
l-
p 31 the latest version of which (final Revision 8) incorporates lessons learned since interim Revision 8 was published in February 1997, as well as refinements prompted by the comments
- submitted in response to the FRN of August 7,1997.(62 FR 42426), which solicited public comments in conjunction with the proposed rulemaking. A copy of the final version of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 will be mailed to each facility licensee; in accordance with NRC practice, revisions of NUREG-1021 are announced in the Federa/ Registerwhen they are issued and become effective six months after the date of issuance. 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 down! iding from the internet at "http://www.nrc. gov."
The NRC will prepare, administer, and grade initial operator licensing examinations when .equested by facility licensees and at least four times a year to maintain the proficiency of its examiners. NRC examiners will use the criteria in the effective version of NUREG-1021 to evaluate whether an applicant meets the Commission's regulations. In this regard, NUREG-1021 is comparable to the Standard Review Plan (SRP), which establishes the criteria that the I
NRC uses to evaluate Part 50 license applications. Licensees that elect to prepare their own licensing examinations will also be required to use the guidance in the effective version of NUREG-1021. As provided in NUREG-1021, licensees may identify differences from the NUREG-1021 examination criteria and evaluate how the proposed alternatives provide an
- acceptable method of complying with the Commission's regulations. The NRC staff will review any proposed alternatives and make a decision regarding their acceptability. The NRC will not approve any alternative that would compromise its statutory responsibility of prescribing uniform
!. conditions for the operator licensing examinations.
i
)
I
rc -
l l
32
- Final Rule This regulation adds a new section, $55.40, " implementation," to Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 55. Paragraph (a) of 955.40 states the NRC's intent to use the criteria in the version of NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," in effect'six months before the examination date wheripreparing and evaluating the written examinations required by $$55.41 and 55.4 the operating tests required by 55.45. The #
NRC uses the criteria in NUREG-1021 to evaluate whether an applicant meets the Commission's regulations.- In this regard, NUREG-1021 is comparable to the Standard Review Plan, which establishes the criteria that the NRC uses to evaluate Part 50 license applications.
Pursuant to Section 107 of the AEA of 1954, as amended, the NRC must prescribe uniform conditions for licensing individuals applying for operator licenses.
Based on the success of the pilot examination program, paragraph (b) of 655.40 allows
_ power reactor facility licensees to prepare, proctor, and grade the written examinations required by 9655.41 and 55.43 and tp/the operating tests required by $55.45, subject to the prepare following conditions- ensure uniformity pursuant to the AEA, the_facjlity licensee shall
, prepare the examinations and tests in accordance with NUREG-1021, minimize the I possibility that the required written examinations and operating tests might be compromised, the facility licensee shall establish, implem t, anfimaintain procedures to control the security >
and integrity of the examinations and tests; ( ensure that the facility licensee's operations and training departments apply sufficient resources to prepare a quality examination, an l- .
authorized representative of the facility licensee shanl approve the examinations bef submitted to the NRC for review and approval; and )Iensure that NRC standards for quality l M
- t. .
l i
l l 33 are' maintained, the facility licensee must receive Commission approval of its proposed written
,/
l (examinations and operating tests s[ before they are giverhjfhese requirements
$955.40(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) respectively. 2 As provided in NUREG-1021, licensees may identify differences from the NUREG-1021
/ /
examination criteria and evaluate how the proposed alternatives provide an acceptable method of compid6&9 with L CuRmmiss I
' regulations. The NRC staff will review any proposed alternatives and make a decision regarding their acceptability. However, the NRC will not approve any alternative that would compromise its statutory responsibility of prescribing uniform conditions for the operator licensing examinations. The NRC staff will review the facility-prepared written examinations and operating tests against the criteria in NUREG-1021 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 a written examination, the facility licensee will proctor and grade the examination 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 the dynamic simulator or the walk-through tests.
Pursuant to the requirements in 955.40(c), the NRC staff will prepare the licensing examinations and tests upon written request b[a power reactor facility licensee in accordance with $55.31(a)(3). In addition, the L ...n .-sa may exercise its discretion to reject a power ,
reactor facility licensee's determination to prepare the required written examina'tions and
/ / / e operating testga~nd
/ to~ proctor and grade the written examinationsg # 23 ee M WL if $ta Corrfittfamen prepare, proctor, and grade the written examinations and prepare the operating tests for the facility licensee. This provision of the regulation allows the NRC to l
r
- l 34 - - l
/ g/ i maintain its . proficiency and to perform these activities if the NRC lusmessrfig questiorha licensee's ability to prepare an acceptable examination.
Paragraph (d) of $55.40 reasserts that the NRC will continue to prepare and administer the written examinations and operating tests for non-power reactor facility licensees. 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. d
. AT14/
This regulation also amends $55.49 because the NRC has determined, effibe 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 co ald, affect the equitable and consistent hYl$
administration of the examination, including activities per6he, during, and after the examination l
'is administered.
Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion i
i The NRC has determined that 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.
l Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the l Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C, 3501 et seg). These were approved by the Office I
l 35 1 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, l
- gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information (i.e., preparing the examinations). The additional, one-time burden for power reactor facility licensees that elect to prepare their licensing examinations to establish I
procedures to prevent the examinations from being compromised is not expected to exceed -
100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> per facility; and the burden of maintaining those procedures is estimated at approximately'10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> per facility per year. 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.
Public Protection Notification I
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
l l
Regulatory Analysis l
i 1
! The Commission has prepared a regulatory analysis on this regulation. The analysis ,
examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The o ,
g 36
- . regulatory analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street l
NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Siegfried 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 significant economic impact on a substantial l
number of small entities. This rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power ;
l plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of l "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
/
In the proposed rul , the NRC took the position that the backfit rule l /
(10 CFR 50.109) did not applyt '.;.. 4.d L ..phecause the proposed shift in regensibility for
/
preparing the examinations: Mould not constitute a " modification of the procedures required to operate a facility" within the scope of the backfit rule; uld not have affected the basic procedures for qualifying licensed operators; and uld not have required facility licensees to alter their organizational structures. However, upon further review, the NRC has concluded that there is insufficient basis to support the original position. Therefore, the NRC has decided to revise the final rule so that power reactor facility licensees may elect to prepare their written
r
- l. ...
i 37 examinations and operating tests (and proctor and grade the written examinations) in i
accordance with NUREG-1021 or to have the NRC prepare the examinations. Eliminating the i requirement for all facility licensees to preparr their examinations and tests obviates the need for a backfd analysis.
l 1
in conjunction with this final rule, the Commission is separately publishing modifications !
i 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 !
l (i.e., Part 55 license applicants / licensees and Part 50 licensees),
i 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
. of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553; the NRC adopts the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 55.
l 1
l'
P ]
.. . .: l k 38 PART 55 - OPERATORS' LICENSES l
' 1.
. - The authority citation for Part 55 continues to read as follows:
)
AUTHORITY: Secs. 107,161,182,68 Stat. 939,948,953, as amended, sec. 234,83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C.~ 2137, 2201,2232, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 88 l
L ' Stat.1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842). ,
)
i Secticns 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,l paragraph (c)(4) is revised to read as follows:
i- 655.8 information collection reauirements: OMB anoroval.
l
- (4) In $$55.40, 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59, clearance is approved under control l 1
number 3150-0101.
- 3. ' A new $55.40 is added to read as follows:
$55.40 Imolementation.
(a) The Commission shall use the criteria in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing
. Examination Standards for Power Reactors," in effect six months before the examination date to prepare the written examinations required by $55.41 and 55.43 and the operating tests required by 55.45.' The Commission shall also use the criteria in NUREG-1021 to evaluate the
39 written examinations and operating tests prepared by power reactor facility licensees pursuant -
to paragraph'(b) of this section.
(b) ' Power reactor facility licensees may prepare, proctor, and grade the written -
examinations required by $$55.41 and 55.43 and may prepare the operating tests required by
$55.45, subject to the following conditions:
. (1) Power reactor facility licensees shall prepare the required examinations and tests in.
accordance with the criteria in NUREG-1021 as described in paragraph (a) of this section; (2) Pursuant to $55.49, power reactor facility licensees shall establish, implement, and maintain procedures to control examination security and integrity; (3) An authorized representative of the power reactor facility licensee shall approve the required examinations and tests before they are submitted to the Commission for review and
- approval; and . j
[(4). Power reactor facility licensees must receive Commission approval of their ,
proposed written examinations and operating tests.
(c) In lieu of paragraph (b) of this section and upon written request from a power reactor
. facility licensee pursuant to $55.31(a)(3), the Commission shall, for that facility licensee, prepare, proctor, and grade, the written examinations required by $$55.41 and 55.43 and the operating tests required by $55.45, in addition, the Commission may exercise its discretion and
- reject a power reactor facility licensee's determination to elect paragraph (b) of this section, in which case the Commission shall prepare, proctor, and grade the required written examinations and operating tests for that facility licensee. f (d) The Commission shall prepare, proctor, and grade the written examinations j required by $$55.41 and 55.43 and the operating tests required by $55.45 for non-power reactor facility licensees.
i 1
.i
7 I
e e, l 40 l
Copies of NUREG3 may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.
~
Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 38082, Washington, DC 20402-9328. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service,5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, l
VA 22161. A copy is available for inspection and/or copying in the NRC Public Document i
Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level), Washington, D.C.
l r
- 4. Section 55.49 !s revised to read as follows:
655.49 Inteority of examinations and tests.
Applicants, licensees, and facility licensees shall not engage in any activity that compromises the integrity of any application, test, or examination required by this part. The integrity of a test or examination 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 or examination. - This includes activities related to the preparation and certification of
- _ license applications and all activities related to the preparation, administration, and grading of l
the tests and examinations required by this part.
j ' Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of 1998.
- For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John C. Hoyle, Secretary of the Commission.
l
l
[7590-01-P] l 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NUREG-1600, Rev.1]
Revision of NRC Enforcement Policy AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Policy Statement: Amendment.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its " General Statement 7
of Policy and Procedure for NRC Erv brcement Actions" (Enforcemen : Policy) to conform to the N #F ItTiO4 {M jf#M Qf/M4# dl46ft amendments tog 0 C" t gublisHIed in this issue of the Federal Register as a separate action. Those amendment low 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 applying for operator licenses at the facility licensees' plants.
Moreover, the amendment requires facility licInsees that elect to prepare their own
/d maintain procedures to control examination security examinations to establish, {Q Wimplement,ian,.All WM and integrity, and it clarifies to ensure that applicants, licensees, and facility f
licensees understand what it means to compromice or examination the integrit requir ' Lj t'; O[ F u 5g Therefore, the Enforcement Policy is being amended to add i examples of violations that may be used as guidance in determining the appropriate severity level for violations involving the compromise of applications, tests, and examinations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective [ insert date of publication in the Federal Register),
while comments are being received. Submit comments on or before [ insert date 30 days from l
l' L
l.
n-l 2 l
date of publication in the Feder# 9egister).
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to: David Meyer, Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: T6D59, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am and 4:15 pm, Federal workdays. Copies of comments received -
may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, NW, (Lower Level),
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Copies of NUREG-1600 may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-9328. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22181. Copies are also available for inspection and I copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room.
i FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lieberman, Director, Office of i
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone:
(301) 415-2741; e-mail: jxt@nrc. gov. ;
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The Commission's " General Statement of Pch; Lnd Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions" (Enforcement Policy) was first issued on September 4,1980. Since that time, the Enforcement Policy has been revised on a number of occasions. On May 13,1998 (63 FR 26630), the Enforcement Policy was revised in its entirety and was also published as NUREG-1600, Rev.1 The Enforcement Policy primarily addresses violations by licensees and I-
E L
+
l :.
l 3
certain non-licensed persons, as discussed further in the Enforcement Policy in footnote 3 to
~ Section I, " Introduction and Purpose," and in Section X, " Enforcement Action Against Non-Licensees."'
M By a separate action published in this issue of the Federa/ Register, the Gemffiittien is' amending its regulations in 10.CFR Part 55 to allow nuclear power facility licensees to prepare, proctor, and grade the written examinations and prepare the operating tests that the NRC uses to evaluate the ccmpetence of individuale applying for operator licenses at the facility licensees' plants. Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, requires the NRC to determine the qualifications of individuals applying for operator licenses, to prescribe uniform conditions for ,icensing such individuals, and to issue licenses as appropriate. Pursuant to the j
, AEA,10 CFR Part 55 requires applicants for operator licenses to pass an examination that AhK satisfies the basic content requirements specified in the regulation. Because the fA' n1thessel considers the integrity of the licensing tests a$d examinations to be essential to the safe operation of nuclear facilities, the is also amending 10 CFR 55.49 to clarify that the- l integrity of a test or examination required by 10 CFR Part 55 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 or examination. Moreover, the is amending 10 CFR Part 55 to require power reactor facility licensees that elect to prepare their i own examinations to estabFsh, implement, and maintain procedures to control examination !
l security and integri The b intends to use its enforcement authority to emphasize that a
/-
compromise of an application, te , or examination required by 10 CFR Part 55 cannot be !
b' accepted. Therefore, the i is amending the Enforcement Policy by adding examples 1
of violations in Supplement I, " Reactor Operations," to provide guidance in determining the
I 1 l l l 4 I appropriate severity level for violations involving the compromise of an application, test, or examination used to evaluate the competence of individuals applying for operator licenses or to evaluate the continued competence of licensed operators. A compromise of an application, I
test, or examination that is not detected before the test or examination is administered is considered a significant regulatory concern and normally categorized at least at Severity Level 111. Willful acts to compromise an application, test, or examination add to the significance.
Therefore, a willful compromise of an application, test, or examination that was detected before the test or examination was administered would also be normally categorized at least at Severity Level 111. A willful compromise that was not detected before the test or examination was administered would be normally categorized at a Severity Level I or 11 depending on the circumstances. A compromise that was not willful and was discovered before a test or examination was given would be normally categorized at Severity Level IV, as would other violations of 10 CFR 55.47 that are of more than minor concern, such as failures to establish, l
implement, and maintain procedures to control the security of the examination process or failures to take adequate corrective action in response to a previous compromise.
Notwithstanding this guidance, the NRC may choose to exercise discretion in i
accordance with Section IV, " Severity of Violations," and Section Vil, " Exercise of Discretion," of the Enforcement Policy and either escalate or mitigate the severity level and enforcement sanction for a particular violation involving the compromise of an applicatien, test, or examination required by 10 CFR Part 55, based on the circumstances of the case, to ensure that the resulting enforcement action appropriately reflects the level of NRC concern regarding
/
the issue and conveys the appropriate message to the individuals (i.e., applicants, licensees','or
,9 i other) or facility licensees involved. Circumstances to be considered include such actor as the timing of the compromise, when the compromise was detected, the number of individuals l
i 5
involved, the scope of the compromice, the advantage received as a result of the compromise, the degree of willfulness, if any, programmatic aspects, and the facility licensee's response to the compromise, in addition, depending on the circumstances of the case, the severity level of the violation may differ between the individual and'the facility licensee. The NRC intends to utilize its enforcement authority, as warranted, and issue notices of violation, civil penalties, and orders to individuals and facility licensees who (1) compromise an application, test, or examination in violation of 10 CFR 55.49, (2) commit deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 50.5, or (3) provide incomplete or inaccurate information to the NRC in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. In addition, cases involving willful violations may be referred to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
Paperwork Reduction Act l
This policy statement does not contain a new or amended information collection .
requirement subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Existing requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-
~
0136. The approved information collection requirements contained in this policy statement appear in Section Vll.C.
1 Public Protection Notification
- The NRC may _not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
I
E l l
6 Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act in accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has determined that this action is not a major rule and has verified this determination with the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB.
Accordingly, Supplement l-Reactor Operations of Appendix B of the NRC Enforcement Policy is revised to read as follows:
APPENDIX B: SUPPLEMENTS - ENFORCEMENT EXAMPLES SUPPLEMENT l-REACTOR OPERATIONS This supplement provides examples of violations in each of the four severity levels as guidance in determining the appropriate severity level for violations in the area of reactor operations.
C. Severity Leveilll- Violations involving for example:
- 5. A compromise of an application, test, or examination required by 10 CFR Part 55 l that is not detected before the test or examination is administered, or a willful compromise that is detected before the test or examination is administered.
D. Severity Level /V- Violations involving for example:
p -- -
l 7
l .. . . . .
l t.
- 2. - A compromise of an application, test, or examination required by 10 CFR Part 55 that is discovered before the test or examination is administered, or other failures to meet 10 CFR 55.49 that are of more than minor concern.
I Dated at Rockville, MD, this day of ,1998.~ l For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. .
John C. Hoyle, Secretary of the Commission. !
. l j
i i
'l l
1 a
1 i
REGULATORY ANALYSIS FOR RULEMAKING ON REQUIREMENTS FOR INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATIONS
- 1. Statement of Problem and Objective 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 these individuals, and to issue licenses as appropriate.
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 the NRC has traditionally prepared, administered, and graded the examinations and tests itself or through its contract examiners, neither the AEA nor Part 55 specifies who must perform those tasks. That fact, in conjunction with the general improvement in the performance level of power reactor facility licensees' training programs, prompted the NRC staff to develop an alternative approach under which nuclear power plant licensees would 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 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 contract examiners under the traditional process; therefore, the safe operation of the nuclear power plants is not compromised by using the alternative approach.
Based on_ the success of the pilot program, the NRC is amending 10 CFR Part 55 so that nuclear power plant licensees may elect whether to prepare these examinations or have them prepared by the NRC. The NRC is also publishing a final version of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," for use by the NRC and facility licensees in preparing, administering, and grading the examinations and tests under the revised process, k
This change ippolicy is part of the NRC's continuing effort to streamline the functions of f the Federalf9pvernment consistent with the Administration's initiatives and to /
accommodatYNRC resource reductions. 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,
- 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 1
license if it finds that the applicant has passed the requisite written examination and operating test in accordance with 5555.41 and 55.45 for reactor operators, or S$55.43
, and 55.45 for senior operators. These written examinations and operating tests l determine whether the applicant for an operator's license has learned to operate a facility competently and safely, and additionally, in the case of a senior operator, whether the applicant has learned to direct the licensed activities of licensed operators competently and safely.
As stated above, the NRC or its contract examiners have traditionally prepared, administered, and graded the written examinations and operating tests. In accordance with 10 CFR 170.12 (i), the NRC staff and contractual costs are recovered from the facility licensees that receive examination services. 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). However, the increased efficiency of the revised examination process has enabled the NRC to eliminate the use of contractors in the operator licensing program and conduct the initial operator licensing and requalification inspection programs with the existing NRC staff. During fiscal year (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 reflect the complete elimination of contractor support for the operator licensing program (with the exception of the generic fundamentals examination).
Based on the success of the pilot program, the NRC originally proposed to amend )
10 CFR Part 55 to require all power reactor facility licensees to prepare their own ]
operator licensing examinations and to proctor and grade the written portion of those j examinations. The staff took the position in the proposed rulemaking that the backfit j rule,10 CFR 50.109, did not apply because the proposed shift in responsibility for preparing the examinations would not constitute a " modification of the procedures j required to operate a facility" within the scope of the backfit rule. Moreover, the rule '
would not have affected the basic procedures for qualifying licensed operators, nor would it have required facility licensees to alter their organizational structures. However, based upon further review since issuing the proposed rulemaking, the NRC has concluded that there is insufficient basis to support the original position. Therefore, the NRC has decided to revise the final rulemaking so that power reactor facility licensees may elect to prepare their written examinations and operating tests (and proctor and grade the written examinations) in accordance with NUREG-1021 or to have the NRC prepare the examinations Eliminating the requirement for al! facility licensees to prepare their examinations and tests has obviated the need for a backfit analysis. <
2
1
- 3. identifica*. ion and Analysis of Three Alternative Approaches 3.1 Alternative 1 - Take No Action -
As discussed above, the budget for FYs 1998 and 1999 already reflects the elimination of contract support as a result of facility licensees' voluntary participation in the revised examination process. Therefore, if 10 CFR Part 55 is not amended (and the NRC terminates the voluntary pilot program), it will require the NRC to take other actions to enable NRC examiners to satisfy power reactor facility licensees' requirements for :
licensed operators and to conduct the requalification inspection program. Such actions might include the following: (1) changing the format or length of the examinations to i l reduce the NRC examiners' workload; (2) reconsidering the possibility of recentralizing l the operator licensing function to improve efficiency and effectiveness; and (3) l
. increasing the direct examiner resources budgeted for the operator licensing program.
3.2 Alternative 2 - Provide Regulatory Guidance 1
Before initiating the proposed rulemaking, the NRC staff had considered the possibility l of implementing the revised examination process by issuing a supplement to Generic ;
l Letter 95-06, " Changes in the Operator Licensing Program," which on August 15,1995, had outlined the revised examination process and solicited volunteers to participate in the pilot program. This alternative was rejected in favor of amending 10 CFR Part 55 to require aH power reactors to prepare their own licensing examinations because the NRC staff considered implementation of the new process on a voluntary basis less desirable )
l over the long term. Allowing rather than requiring facility licensees to prepare the initial operator licensing examinations could affect the NRC staff's ability to meet the examination demands and scheduling needs of facility licensees, depending on the demand for examinations and the percentage of licensees that elect to prepare their own examinations. The resource problem is further compounded by the elimination of contractor support for the operator licensing program and by other unanticipated demands on the examiner work force (e.g., examination appeals).
! In the proposed rulemaking, the NRC took the position that the backfit rule did not apply to this rulemaking. However, it has concluded upon further review since issuing the proposed rule, that there is insufficient basis to support that position. Consequently, the NRC has reconsidered its options and decided to implement the revised examination I process on an elective basis. The merits of the revised process (e.g., improved l regulatory efficiency and greater licensee control over the examination costs) Justify j proceeding with a rule change that gives facility licensees the option to prepare the examinations, rather than terminating the pilot program and resuming the NRC-prepared l examination process on an industrywide basis.
l l' 3.3 Alternative 3 - Amend 10 CFR Part 55 l This attemative, as implemented by the proposed rulemaking, would have required l every power reactor facility licensee to prepare the initial operator licensing examinations and to proctor and grade the written portion of the examination.
3
However, as noted in the discussion of Alternative 2 above, the NRC staff has concluded, since publishing the proposed rule, that there is insufficient basis to support the position that the backfit rule does not apply to this rulemaking. Therefore, the NRC has decided to withdraw from this altemative and revise the final rulemaking so that power reactor facility licensees may elect to prepare their written examinations and operating tests (and proctor and grade the written examinations) in accordance with NUREG-1021 or to have the NRC prepare the examinations.
- 4. Regulatory impact - Qualitative Costs and Benefits Facility Licensees Before beginning the pilot examination program, the NRC depended on NRC employees and contractors to prepare and administer the initial operator liconsing 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 as implemented by this final rulemaking, each power reactor facility licensee will be able to elect whether to prepare the site-specific initial operator licensing examinations at its facilities or have the NRC prepare those examinations. Facility licensees that elect to prepare their own examinations will be required 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 will have the option to hire a contractor to prepare the license examination (as the NRC often did before starting the pilot process).
As provided in NUREG-1021, licensees may identify differences from the NUREG-1021 examination criteria and evaluate how the proposed alternatives provide an acceptable
- method of complying with the Commission's regulations. The NRC staff will review any proposed attematives and make a decision regarding their acceptability. The NRC will not approve any altemative that would compromise its statutory responsibility of prescribing uniform conditions for the operator licensing examinations.
This rule change gives facility licensees that elect to prepare their own examinations 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 submitted to the NRC. The higher l
the quality of the examination that the facility licensee submits, the lower the resulting ;
NRC charges. If the NRC or one of its contractors writes an examination, the facility l licensee is responsible for the entire cost of preparing the examination.
The NRC will 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 participating facility licensee will be billed only for the time 4
I; that the NRC staff spends to review the examination prepared by the facility licensee, to L direct the revisions that are necessary for the examination to meet NRC standards, and to administer and grade the operating tests.
After the NRC reviews and approves a facility-prepared examination, the facility licensee l will be required to proctor and grade the written portion according to the guidance in .
NUREG-1021. The NRC staff will continue to administer and grade the operating tests, l review and approve the written examination results recommended by the facility ;
licensee, and make the final licensing decisions. j i
Based on lessons learned 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 hours. 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 reviewing and assisting with the administrition 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 hours was somewhat higher 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 i an examination. The extra burden was generally attributable to the facility licensees' I unfamiliarity with specific NRC examination expectations and to the additional !
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 l examination and expected that the burden would diminish 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 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 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 houru), and that the time would be equally distributed between 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, j assuming 60 site-specific licensing examinations per year with all facility licensees preparing their own examinations in accordance with the proposed rulemaking, and was roughly the same as 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 l in a smallindustrywide savings of about $220,000 per year. As an elective program, the yearly industry cost savings will be even more difficult to predict because of variations in the total demand for licensing examinations, the percentage of those examinations that ,
are prepared by facility licensees and the NRC, and the efficiency with which each i participating facility licensee is able to prepare its examinations.
5 L
l
j .
l The proposed rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register (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 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, 1: 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 l 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 i questions requires detailed plant knowledge better known to licensees and that the I 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 eramination 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 l 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 .
utility employee stated that the rule will simply transfer the cost of contractors from the NRC to the utilities.
l The NRC staff acknowledges that the revised examination and administrative criteria in l 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 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 reolain 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 appiicants) 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.
6
., .8, i 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 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 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 requiremerits.
As noted earlier, the proposed regulatory 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 50120 and 55.4, SAT-based training programs must evaluate the trainees' 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 concerns 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 restrictions are necessary to address the potential for conflicts of interest in the examination development process, it has reconsidered the scope of the restrictions in interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 in an effort to reduce the potential burden on facility -
licensees. Consequently, final Revision 8 will allow facility instructors to prepare the written examination questions without regard to the amount of time they spent training 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 the case in interim Revision 8).
Additionally, the fact that the NRC has decided to implement the revised examination process on an elective basis rather than require all facility licensees to prepare their licensing examinations will minimize the effect of the personnel restrictions by affording facility licensees with small training staffs the option of having the NRC prepare their licensing examinations. This change is also consistent the NEl's comment on the proposed rulemaking that the industry would prefer to continue the voluntary process because it would allow flexibility for a few facility licensees with small training staffs.
7 l
y 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 and measurement principles and examination development techniques. The cost of this initiative is uncertain at this time, but the benefits would be realized throughout the facility licensees' training programs and not just in the initial operator licensing program. )
With regard to the additional security costs cited in the public comments, it is important L 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 proposed rule prompted the NRC to include additional security guidelines in final i Revision 8 of NUREG-1021; however, the guidelines are instructionalin nature and do l not require any security system improvements. The security incidents that occurred during the pilot program have also prompted the NRC to conclude that applicants, licensees, and facility licensees may not understand the provisions of 55.49, " Integrity of Examinations and Tests," pertain to more than just those activities involving the physical administration of an examination. Therefore, the NRC has determined that it would be beneficial to amend 955.49 in the final rule to clarify the intent of the _
regulation. Moreover, the NRC has revised the final examination rulemaking to state clearly that facility licensees that elect to prepare their own licensing examinations are required to establish, implement, and maintain procedures to control examination security and integrity. The NRC staff believes that most facility licensees have already established examination security policies and practices, so the additional cost of i 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 offhe examinations) to be delayed 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 the industry in response to the NRC staff's solicitation of public comments on the draft revision of NUREG-1021 (refer to 61 FR 6869, of February 22,1996) indicated that 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, 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.
l 8
In summary, before beginning the pilot program, the NRC relied on its own staff and contracters 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 prepare and l
h%
administer >de4 examinations, the NRC staff and contractors had to learn the details of the operation of each specific plant. ' To prepare the examinations, the examining staff I
had to,'in effect, duplicate the technical expertise already present at each site. This rule j will reduce this inefficiency by allowing each power reactor facility licensee to elect whether to prepara its own licensing examinations or have them prepared by the NRC.
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 licensecs.
j The NRC expects that the initial period of inefficiency will continue until facility licensees l team 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, 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. ,
l Implementing the revised examination process on an elective basis has obviated the need for a backfit analysis because it will allow each facility licensee to assess the costs and benefits of preparing its own examinations in accordance with the criteria in NUREG-1021 with the costs and benefits of having the NRC staff prepare the examinations (as has been the traditional practice). The yearly industry cost savings will
- depend upon the total demand for licensing examinations, the percentage of those examinations that are prepared by facility licensees and the NRC, and the efficiency with which each participating facility licensee is able to prepare its examinations.
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 facility-prepared 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 traced to individual differences among the NRC 9
.; e examiners who review and approve the examinations. This was and is also the case when the NRC prepares the examinations. However, the NRC believes that the variation in the level of difficulty can 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 102 facility-prepared examinations administered through the end of June 1998 were orily 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, i
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 at which the questions are written and the plausibility of the distractors or wrong answer 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 j cognitive level of the questions and the plausibility of the distractors have affected the discrimination validity of the examinations. Consequently, those marginal applicants l
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 and 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 prepares the examination in lieu of 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 l i
When the staff developed the pilot examination process, it estimated that it would take approximately 370 examiner-hours to review and otherwise prepare for, administer, grade, and document an average facility-prepared operator licensing examination.
l Although a number of the proposed examinations required more NRC resources than l
expected to achieve NRC's standards, the burden was generally offset by other examinations that required less effort to review and revise.
10 l
L
The increased efficiency of the revised examination process has enabled the NRC to ,
eliminate the use of contractors in the operator licensing program and conduct the initial I operator licensing and requalification inspection programs with the existing NRC staff. l Before initiating the pilot examination and transition program at the beginning of FY j 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 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 3.8 staff FTEs for generic operator licensing activities. The licensed operator requalification inspection program required 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 1997 to approximately 28.1 FTEs. This actual resource burden is generally consistent with the budget estimates prepared before beginning the pilot examination program and 1' supports the staff's conclusion that the revised examination process is an efficient alternative to the traditional NRC-prepared examinations. j
)
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 in order to meet NRC I 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 anticipated. 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 l facility licensees' needs for licensing examinations. As noted in SECY-97-079, NRR has issued a memorandum to the regional administrators emphasizing the 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 does not meet NRC standards for quality and level of difficulty.
As noted in the discussion of alternative approaches, implementing the revised examination process on an elective basis will complicate the task of resource management and may affect the NRC staff's ability to meet the examination demands j and scheduling needs of facility licensees because the number of licensees that elect to prepare their own examinations could fluctuate from year to year. For purposes of comparison, the average NRC-prepared examination requires somewhat more than half an FTE to prepare, administer, and document, while the average facility-prepared examination requires about one-third of an FTE to review, administer, and document.
Therefore, with the 17 FTEs that are budgeted for the initial examination program in FYs 1999 and 2000, the NRC staff will be able to prepare about 30 to 35 examinations per year, while it would be able to review about 50 to 55 facility-prepared examinations.
During the two full years in which facility licensees have been allowed to prepare their 1
11
h i
examinations under the voluntary pilot program, the level of industry participation has j ranged from about 75 percent (41/55) in FY 1997 to about 90 percent (50/56) in FY i
1998. Therefore, if the current level of industry participation is maintained, the staff l expects that it will be able to satisfy most facility licensees' examination demands and scheduling needs. /
/ j i
s !
To manage the. workload, the NRC staff will resume issuing an annual [dministrativeg J'etter that will request facility licensees to report their anticipated examination needs for
/
the next four fiscal years and their intentions with regard to preparin9 each examination.
Moreover, the staff intends to work with NEl in an effort to coordinate the examination schedule and address workload conflicts.
- 5. Decision Rationale The amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 will allow power reactor facility licensees to elect whether to prepare the entire initial operator licensing examinations and to proctor and i grade the written portion of the examinations or to have the NRC perform those tasks. !
The qualitative assessment of costs and benefits discussed above leads the NRC to conclude that the overall impact of the rulemaking will not significantly increase licensee i costs and may eventually result in a savings to licensees that elect to prepare their own examinations as they become more familiar with the NRC examination guidelines. Any improvements in efficiency will likely be due, in part, to the facility employees' better 'j understanding of the plant design and operating characteristics and their ready access to the reference materiais 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 that elect to prepare their own i examinations 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. Moreover, facility licensees that elect not to prepare their own examinations will derive no cost benefit from this action.
The voluntary pilot program has demonstrated that the revised examination process is effective as well as efficient. The pilot examinations, revised as directed by the NRC, 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 102 pilot examinations administered through the third quarter of FY 1998 were the same as, or slightly lower 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 fac;lities was in no way compromised.
The NRC staff believes that its ability to focus on operator performance and its examiner experience may improve as a result of this action 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, but the increased 12
E V
efficiency of the revised process has enabled the NRC to eliminate the use of contractors as of FY 1998. Consequently, the revised process will enable the NRC
- examiners to gain 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 procedures that will be exercised during the plant walk-through test and the dynamic simulator scenarios.
Although the proposed rulemaking had endorsed Alternative 3 as the preferred method for implementing the revised examination process, the NRC has determined, based upon further review, that there is insufficient basis to support the earlier position that the backfit rule does not apply to this action. Consequently, the staff has reconsidered the alternatives and decided to implement the revised examination process on an elective basis (Altemative 2). The merits of the revised process justify proceeding with a rule change that gives facility licensees the option to prepare the examinations, rather than terminating the pilot program and resuming the NRC-prepared > 1 amination process on an industrywide basis. This action has the potential to save facility licensees money if 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 staff's examination experience and ability to focus on operator performance.
- 6. Implementation Schedule /
The rule will become effective 180 days after the date published in the Federa/ Register. No effect on other schedules is anticipated.
13
r; s
l The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chairman
- Subcommittee on 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 j the Office of the Federal Register for publication. This rulemaking will allow facility licensees to l 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 that elect to prepare their own examinations will be required to submit the examinations to the NRC for review and l approval and establish procedures to control examination security and integrity.~ This rulemaking requires the NRC to prepare those examinations and tests not prepared by facility licensees and preserves the NRC's authority to prepare the examinations and tests, as
- necessary.
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 i applicants'are required by 10 CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," to pass an examination l satisfying the basic content requirements that are also specified in the regulation. Although the ]
l AEA is not specific as to who will prepare and administer the examination, the NRC has l traditionally performed these functions through its staff or contract examiners. The NRC is increasing power reactor facility licensees' role in the examination development process in !
recognition of the improvements in industry training programs, to make the operator licensing j
' program more efficient, and to realize budgetary savings for the Federal Govemment.
The NRC will continue to (1) prepare and administer the generic fundamentals examination to l operatorlicense applicants, (2) review every facility-prepared examination, direct changes as i required to achieve NRC standards, and approve the examination before it is given, (3). {
administer and grade the operating test portion of the examination, including a control room simulator examination and a one-on-one demonstration of specific operating tasks, and (4)-
prepare and administer the licensing examinations as requested by facility licensees and at least once per year in each of the NRC's four regions.
t .
l Sincerely, !
Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Federal Register Notice cc: Representative Ralph Hall p
l 0
The Honorable James M. Inhofe, Chairman 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:
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 allow 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 that elect to prepare their own examinations will be required to submit the examinations to the NRC for review and approval and establish procedures to control examination security and integrity. This rulemaking requires the NRC to prepare those examinations and tests not prepared by facility licensees and preserves the NRC's authority to prepare the examinations and tests, as necessary.
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' t.icenses," 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. The NRC is !
increasing power reactor facility licensees' role in the examination development process 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.
The NRC will continue to (1) prepare and administer the generic fundamentals examination to operator license applicants, (2) review every facility-prepared 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 examination, including a control room simulator examination and a one-on-one demonstration of specific operating tasks, and (4) prepare and administer the licensing examinations as requested by facility licensees and at least once per year in each of the NRC's four regions.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director.
Office of Congressional Affairs Enclosuret
- Federal Register Notice cc: Senator Bob Graham
0 COMMISSION PUBLISHES FINAL RULE FOR UTILITY ROLE IN INITIAL REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATIONS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has amended its regulations to allow nuclear power plant licensees to 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 final, 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 examination 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 L
4 NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," has l l
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 involved in training the license applicants.
The NRC staff will prepare the licensing examinations upon request by facility licensees and at least once annually in each of the agency's four regions to ensure that.the NRC staff ;
retains proficiency in examination writing and to serve 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 June 1998, the staff reviewed l and approved 102 operator licensing examinations prepared by utilities in accordance with published NRC guidance. The results of the examinations have been consistent with the results of examinations prepared by the NRC.
Licensing of operators for research and test reactors 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 edition of the FederalRegister.
2