ML20216F627

Concurs W/Proposed Rule, Initial Licensed Operator Exam Requirements. Package Presenting Comments Encl

ML20216F627
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/07/1997
From:	Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Morrison D NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES)
Shared Package
ML20216F483	List: ML20216F480 ML20216F496 ML20216F508 ML20216F518 ML20216F534 ML20216F542 ML20216F561 ML20216F582 ML20216F587 ML20216F606 ML20216F627 ML20216F726 ML20216F751 ML20216F759 ML20216F776 ML20216F809 ML20216F867 ML20216F949
References
FRN-62FR42426, RULE-PR-55 AF62-1-013, AF62-1-13, NUDOCS 9709120048
Download: ML20216F627 (32)

Text

r a #mwmv f *t UNITED STATES ...

g )?J1 ,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ppg

, wasniwotow, o.c. roen 4an

• • • • • • NAR 01)gg1 MEMORANDUM FOR: David L. Morrison, Director Office f7Nu le " Rggul tory Research .

TROM t - [/'I Da [L'. e r, e' Rules Review and Directives Branch Office of Administration

SUBJECT:

OFFICE CONCURRENCE ON PROPOSED RULE ENTITLE 0, "lNITIAL LICENSED OPERA 10R EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS" The Office of Administration concurs on the proposed rule that amends Part 55.

We have attached a copy of the package that presents our comments.

When the document is forwarded for publication, please include a 3.5 inch diskette that contains a co)y of the document in Wordperfect 5.0 or 5.1 as part of the transmittal pac < age. 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 proposed rule that is required by NRC's regulatory history procedures, you should place the designator "AF62-1" in the upper right-hand corner of each document concerning the proposed rule that you forward to the Nuclear Document System.

If you have any questions, please contact Michael Harrison, 415-6865, or Michael Lesar, 415-7163, of the Office of Administration.

Attachment:

As stated 9709120049 970904 5562N,42426 PDR

2 i

i

[QBt The Commissioners .

[RQM: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations i

SVREGI: PROPOSED RULE - INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS

' EVELQ1E:

To obtain ra-ission aproval to publisMIn the Federal Reaistg)r proposed ruleGhat wou' d amend 10 CFR Part 55 to require power reactor racility licensees to prepare the entire initial examination for reactor operators (R0s) and senior reactor operators (SR0s) and to proctor the written portion '

i of the examination, BACKGROUND:

On March 24, 1995 SECY-95-075, " Proposed Changes to the NRC Operator LicensingProgram,"informedtheCommissionoftheAstaff'sintenttorevise_._)$  !

the operator licensing program to allow greater part'cipation by facility licensees and to eliminate(SRM) contractor assistance in in this area,the Commission s idA requirements memorandum dated April 18, 1995, approved- $ staff the staff's proposal to snitiate a transition process to revise the operator licensing program and directed the staff to carefully consider experience from pilot examinations before fully implementing the changes. On August 15, 1995, qt h_ thwtaff issued Generic Letter (GL) 95-06, " Changes in the Operator Licensing

I Program," outliaing the revised process for developing examinations and

- soliciting volunteers to participate in pilot examinations to evaluate and refine the methodology. -

CONTACT:-

Siegfried Guenther -NRR (301);415-1056

, Harry S.-Tovmassian, RES (301)~415-6231  ;

',-. - - - ,,-4 m,-,_ q . ir--,-- -y , - . . -- - ~ ,- . 6e , , - - ..- , %c:. .. - v.,r,,-y- . ,.-,4 , r,,- r -ww -r--a

The Commissioners Idb Between October 1,1995, and April 5,1996, theAstaff reviewed and approved 22 operator licensing examinations that had been prepared by facility licensees in accordance with Revision 7 of NUREG-1021. " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards" (June 1994), as supplemented by guidance contained in GL 95-06.

These examinations were then used to test 146 R0 and SR0 applicants.

ThefstaffdocumentedtheresultsofthepilotexaminationsinSECY-96-123

" Proposed Changes to the NRC 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 provide additional information regarding a number of issues related to the revised examination process.

hib On September 25, 1996, theastaff issued SECY-96-206, "Rulemaking plan for Amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 To Change Licensed Operator Examination Requirements." The Commission approved the rulemaking plan in an SRM dated December 17, 1996.

QlECVS$10N:

pursuant to the SRM of December 17, 1996, in february 1997, the4 staff issued an interim version of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, which has been rem U ed NN

/

" Operator Licensing Examination Standards for power Reactors," TheAstaff /

will implement the interim revision on a voluntary basis until the rlu einRfiig is complete. NUREG-1021 was updated to incorporate lessons learned during the pilot examination program and will be further revised, as necessary, based on industry and public comments in response to the enclosed federal Reg 11Ler notice.~ TheAstaff has also issued a supplement to GL 95-06 to inform power 1$L~Vea6 tor Taillity licensees of the results of the pilot examination program and the NRC's decistor to chpnoe the osergtor licgnging process.

% C h H G ill MAnit ht f TUh As directed by the Commission, RR)has continued to monitor the results of the facility-prepared examinations or indications that might dissuade the Commission from approving the proposed rulemaking. As an extension of the original pilot program, NRR has asked the NRC examiners to respond to a survey on various aspects of the revised examinat7,n process, furthermore, as noted in SECY-96-206, NRR will continue to audi, nd review the level of knowledge and the level of difficulty of selected written examinations and operating tests.

W Between August 19, 1996, when theAstaff resumed conducting pilot-style examinations, and the end of December 1996, the staff reviewed, approved, and administered 12 examinations that were developed by facility licensees based on the guidance in GL 95-06. This raised the total number of examinations cogleted using-the pilot process to 34, including the 22 examinations that were conducted under the original pilot program between October 1, 1995, and April 5, 1996. facility-prepared examinations were administered to 84 R0 aaplicants and 144 SRO applicants during the pilot program. The results of tiese examinations are summarized below; the power reactor licensing examination results for fiscal year 1995 are provided for comparison. The pass rates for the facility-prepared e w ainations administered did not vary significantly from those prepared by the NRC.

I The Commissioners I Power Reactor Pass Rates Examinations R0 R0 R0 SR0 SR0 SR0 Written Operating Total Written Operating Total facility-Prepared 9H 95% 88% 93% 96% 90%

Since October 1, 1995 fiscal Year 1995 94% 98% 92% 95% 95% 92%

ff91c. One SRO operating test failure and 2 SRO written failures have been appealed and are still undergoing review.

'Mamlad4en-dheriminatefd[e most common problem identified by the NRC examiners regarding the facility-prepared examinations was that the level of ,

knowledge and difficulty of the submitted examinations did not consistently discriminate at the appropriate level and that considerable effort was required to work with the facility licensee to revise the examinations to correct this condition. As noted in SECY-96-206, NUREG-1021 has been modified to establish a standard that at least half of the examination questions be written at the comprehension or analysis level. This criterion will take effect when Revision 8 of NVREG-1021 is implemented and should help improve the level of knowledge tested by the submitted examinations.

Although NUREG-iO21 contains criteria that should halp establish an appropriate level of dif ficulty for the examinations, the personal experience and judgment of the author and reviewer of the examination remain the most important factors in controlling the level of difficulty. Traditionally, an NRC or contract examiner established the level of difficulty of the examinatior3perty e facility licensee was given an opportunity to review the examination befo it was administered, in most case the review with the /

facility licensee focused on technical issues c hich t e NRC examiner and V facility reviewer could easily resolve. On occasion, the facility reviewers have complained that an examination was too difficult ht thn facility WW/,/M #

reviewers seldom recommended changes that would incre7se the difficulty of the examination if it was )erceived to be easier than normal. Under tne revised examination process, tie facility licensee will establish the level of difficulty of the examination aqp e NRC examiner will have to work with the facility author to make whate er ch ges are necessary to ensure that the examination discriminates at the appropriate level. Even though there is a general tendency of licensaes to resist NRC examiners' efforts to make the examinations more difficult, the level of NRC effort to ensure examination adequacy is not expected to be significantly changed. Most NRC examiners believe that the revised examination process is as effective as the traditional method.

LOORDINATlgti:

The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer concurs that there will be no resource impacts. The Office of the Chief Information Officer concurs that there will be no information technology impacts.

The Commissioners - 4-RECOMENDATION:

.That-the Commission:

1. Anorove the notice of proposed rulemaking (Enclosure 1) for publication in the federal Reaister.

2. Certify that this rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

3. Determine that the backfit rule 10 CFR 50.109 does not apply to this proposed rule.

4. Determine that neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared because this proposed rule is eligible for a categorical exclusion as defined in 10 Cf6 51.22(c)(1).

5. Rd31

~

a. This rulemaking will be published in the Federal Reaister for a 75-day public comment period;

b. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Susiness 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;

c. The proposed rule contains information collection recuirements tiiat ,

are subject to review by the Office of Management 2nc Budget (OMB); r

d. A regulatory analysis has been prepared (Enclosure 2);

e. The appropriate Congressional committees will oe informed -

(Enclosure 3);

_. . . _ , - , _ , . . m..,.... _ _ ,__._-._ ._, . , _ . . - . . .

. - - .- - - -. . __ _ _ _ _ =

The Commissioners f. A public announcement will be issued (Enclosure 4); and

g. Copies of the notice of proposed rulemaking will be distributed to all licensees. The notice will be sent to other interested parties upon request.

L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations

Enclosures:

1. FRN of Proposed Rule

2. Regulatory Analysis

3. Congressional letters

4. Public Announcement

I i

(7590-01-P)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  ;

10 CFR Part 55' RIN 3150-AF62 i

! Initial Licensed Operator Examination Requirements P

AGENCY: -Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

! ACTION: Proposed rule.  ;

SUMMARY

. The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) is proposing to amend its

@ *dW '

regulations to require-ttnrtfpower i t m6 facility licensees %fpreparethewr examinations and operating tests that the NRC currently uses to evaluate the competence of' individuals applying for operator licenses at those plants. The proposed amendment would require the licensee to submit each examination and test for the NRC's review and approval and would preserve the NRC's authority to prepare the examinations and tests, as necessary. .The proposed rule would allow the NRC to invoke its authority if it lost confidence in a '- """ -

licensee'sabilitytopreparetheseexaminationsacceptabgortomaintain the proficiency of its own license examiners. This proposed 4ction would44NP allow the NRC to eliminate between $3 million and $4 million in contractor support for preparation and administration of examinations.

9 DATES: Submit-coments by (Insert the date 75 days after publication in the Federal Register). Coments received after this date will be considered if it

,is practical to do so, but the Comission is able to assure consideration only for coments received on or before this date.

.l - - - -__..._..,..____.u.__ - -, u .. _, _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . _ . - - _ _ _ . - .

i ADDRESSES: Comments may be sent to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attn: Docketing and Service Branch. Hand i deliver comments to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 am  !

and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. For information on submitting comments electronically, see the discussion under Electronic Access'in the Supplementary Information section.

Single copies of this proposed rulemaking may be obtained by written >

request or telefax ((301) 415-2260) from Harry S. Tovmassian, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC-20555. Certain documents related to this rulemaking, including comments received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, DC. These same documents may also be viewed and downloaded _ electronically via the Electronic Bulletin Board established by NRC for this rulemaking as indicated in the Supplementary Information section.

^ '

c0R FURTHER INFORMA110N CONTACT: Harry S. Tovmassian, Office of Nuclear i

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6231; e-mail hstenrc. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) of 1954, as amended, requires the NRC to determine the qualifications of individuals applying for an operator license, to prescribe uniform conditions for licensing such 2

l-

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

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

34 Alti/d/vf(( w ' % i f C I8I I W e O ( k M d b dd Ad cpqb MlM(')t/hknM t b N(utktd why ftttl)g ( Q h.'l,3 yy g t

/

individuals, and to issue licenses as appropriate. Pursuant to the AEA,\

10 CFR Part 55 requires applicants for operator licenses to pass an examination that satisfies the basic content requirements specified in the regulation. Although neither the AEA nor Part 55 specify who must prepare, 1

administer, or grade these examinations, the NRC has traditionally performed  !

l those tasks itself or through its contract examiners. d its contract examiners use the guidance in NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," to prepare the initial operator licensing examinations. 1his document has been revised as experience has been acquired in preparing these examinations. The current version is designated as Interim Revision 8.'

The intended modifications to Part 55 would allow facility licensees to have greater participation in the initial operator licensing process and enable the NRC to eliminate contractor assistance in this area. Between $3 million and $4 million in contractor support for the preparation and i

administration of the initial operator licensing examinations would be

~

eliminated. On April 18, 1995, the Commission approved thi NRC staff's proposal to initiate a transition process to revise the operator licensing HlW programanddirectedthefstafftocarefullyconsiderexperiencefrompilot examinations before fully implementing the changes. On August 15, 1995, the NRC staff issued Generic letter (GL) 95-06, " Changes in the Operator Licensing O

Program,"[ outlining the revised examination devel pment process and soliciting volunteers to participate in pilot examinations to evaluate and refine the methodology.

' Copies are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC, CN 3 b C/

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

Between October 1, 1995, and April 5, 1996, the NRC staff reviewed and approved 22 operator licensing examinations-(submitted by 20 facility licensees), including both the written examinations and the operating tests,

'th;t.::rgreparedbyfacilitylicensees. These examinations were prepared using the guidance in Revision 7 (Supplement 1) of NUREG-1021' and the ,

additional guidance in GL 95-06. These examinations were used to test 146 reactor operator and senior reactor operator applicants.

Discussion The pilot program demonstrated that the revised examination development process can be both effective and efficient. Comments from the NRC f.taff and 4

industry personnel who participated in the pilot examinations were generally favorable. The quality of the licensee-developed examinations (as modified by the NRC) was generally comparable to the examinations prepared by the NP.C staff or its contractors. However, several of the examinations submitted by facility licensees required significant rework, indicating that some licensee examiners did not fully understand the criteria for preparing examinations which meet NRC standards. With training and s aerience, it is expected that the industry will gain proficiency in preparing the examinations.

Sopies ,c ;;;i' abl ^ for in; pctivii vi copyiny iur a fee from tne niil

.) NS'ic Decuiiisii6 Ruum ai-2120 t 5treet mi., Wasnington, ib the PDR's mailing Qj .

address is Mail Stop LL-6, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (202) 634-3273; fax (202) 634-3343.

4

Availability of Guidance Document for License Examination Preparation Q(kl AlthoughfPart55doesnotspecifywhowillprepare, administer,andgradethe written' examinations and operating tests for reactor operator and senior reactor operator licenses, the NRC or-its contract examiners have traditionally performed these tasks. As a consequence of performing the tasks

~

associated with preparing and administering the initial licensing examinations, the NRC has developed a substantial body of guidance, which has

'been published in various versions of NUREG-1021 to aid both NRC and its contract examiners. The latest version of NUREG-1021 (Interim ~ Revision 8) incorporates the pilot examination criteria in GL 95-06, lessons learned during the pilot examinations, and a number of refinements prompted by the industry recommendations submitted in response to the Federal Register notice dated February 22,1996 (61 FR 6869), which solicited public comments on the proposed NUREG changes. A copy of Interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 is being mailed to each facility licensee. Copies may be inspected and/or copied for a fee at the NRC's Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. NUREG-1021 is also electronically available for downloading from the Internet at "http://www.nrc. gov." All interested parties are invited to comment on Interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 in addition to the proposed rule. These public comments will be addressed, and Revision 8 will be published as a final NUREG document.

The NRC plans to prepare, administer, and grade initial operator licensing examinations at least four times per year, using NUREG-1021 as guidance.- Licensees would be expected to use the guidance contained in NUREG-r 1021 to prepare examination t e NRC staff will review and approve any 5

deviations. However, the NRC will not approve any deviation that would compromise its statutory responsibility of prescribing uniform conditions for the operator licensing examinations. Examples of unacceptable deviations include, but may not be limited to, the use of essay questions in place of multiple choice questions and the administration of open book examinations.

Proposed Rule This proposed regulation will add a new section, 6 55.40,

" Implementation," to Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 55. The requirement for power reactor facility licensees to prepare the written examinations and operating tests, to submit them to the NRC for review and approval, and to proctor the written tests would be contained in 66 55.40(a)(1), (2), and (3),

respectively.

Each power reLetor facility licensee would be required to prepare and sutmit the proposed examinations (including the written examination, the walk-through, and the dynamic simulator tests) to the NRC consistent with the v

guidance contained in NUREG-1021. The NRC staff wi t review the entire examination and direct whatever changes are necessary to ensure that adequate levels of quality, difficulty, and consistency are traintained. After the NRC staff reviews and approves an examination, the facility licensee would proctor and grade theiwritten portion consistent with the guidance in NUREG-1021. The ed6 NRC staff wili 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 wf not conduct parallel operator evaluations during the dynamic simulator or the walk-through tests.

6

. Pursuant to proposed requirements in 5 55.40(b), the NRC staff would maintaintheauthoritytopreparetheexaminations$andtestsandtoproctor

'yffl Nk the site-specific wr;tten examinat,ipps. ThfswouldallowNRCtomaintainits NtuM % 9t M T.6 %

staff capability 40.d65 0. Also, if the NRC has reason to question a licensee's ability to prepare an acceptable examination, 5 55.40 the #$

authoritytoprepareandadministertheexaminations~andtestg%eUp Paragraph (c) of 5 55.40 reasserts that the NRC would continue to prepare and administer the written examinations and operating tests at non-power reactor facilities.

Electronic Access Comments may be submitted electronically, in either AScil text or Wordperfect format (version 5.1 or later), by calling the NRC Electronic Bulletin Board (BBS) on FedWorld. The bulletin board may be accessed using a personal computer, a modem, and one of the commonly available communications software packages, or directly via Internet. Background documents on the rulemaking are also available, as practical, for downloading and viewing on the bulletin board.

If using a personal computer and modem, the NRC rulemaking subsystem on FedWorld can be accessed directly by dialing the toll free number (800) 303-9672.- Communication software parameters should be set as follows: parity to none, data bits to 8, and stop bits to 1 (N,8,1). Using ANSI or VT-100 terminal emulation, the.NRC rulemaking subsystem can then be accessed by selecting the " Rules Menu" option from the "NRC Main Menu " Users will find the "FedWorld Online User's Guides" particularly helpful. Many NRC subsystems 7

tr

and data bases also have a " Help /Information Center" option that is tailored to the particular subsystem.

The NRC subsystem on FedWorld can also be accessed by a direct dial phone number for the main FedWorld BBS, (703) 321-3339,- or by using Telnet via Internet: fedworld. gov. If using (703) 321-3339 to contact FedWorld, the NRC subsystem will be accessed from the main FedWorld menu by selecting the

" Regulatory, Government Administration and State Systems," then selecting

" Regulatory Information Mall ." At that point, a menu will be displayed that has an option "U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission" that will take you to the NRC Online main menu. The NRC Online area also can be accessed directly by typing "/go nrc" at a FedWorld command line, if you access NRC from FedWorld's main menu, you may return to FedWorld by selecting the " Return to FedWorld" option from the NRC Online Main Menu. However, if you access NRC at FedWorld by using NRC's toll-free number, you will have full access to all NRC systems, but you will not have access to the main FedWorld system.

If you contact FedWorld using Telnet, you will see the NRC area and menus, including the Rules Menu. Although you will be able to download documents and leave messages, you will not be able to write comments or upload files (comments), if you contact FedWorld using FTP, all files can be accessed and downloaded but uploads are not allowed; all you will see is a list of files without descriptions (normal Gopher look). An index file listing all files within a subdirectory, with descriptions, is available, e There is a 15-minute time limit for FTP access.

Although FedWorld also can be accessed through the World Wide Web, like FTP that mode only provides access for downloading files and does not display the NRC Rules Menu.

8

For more information on NRC bulletin boards call Mr. Arthur Davis, Systems-Integration and Development Branch, NRC, Washington, DC 20555, telephoi , (301) 415-5780; e-mail axd39nrc. gov.

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed 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 proposed regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). This rule has been' submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the information collection requirements.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to . average 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information (i.e.,

preparing the examinations). The.U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the collection of information contained in the proposed rule and on the following issues:

9

l.. Is1the proposed collection of information necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information ,

will have practical utility?

.2. Is the estimate of burden accurate?

3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

4. How can the burden of the collection of information. be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques?

. Send comments on any aspect of this proposed collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6F-33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at bjs10nrc. gov; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE08-10202, (3150-0018,and 3150-0101), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

Comments to OMB on the collections of information or on the above issues shoula be submitted by (insert date 30 days after publication in the Federal Register). Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments-received after this date.

Public Protection Notification Il

-g w -

1 -

49W' W /

10

JThe 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.

Regulatory Analysis The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed-regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives considered by th'e Commission. The. draft analysis is available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (Lower Level), Washington,

'DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Harry S. Tovmassian at (301) 415-6231.

.The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis.

Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, (5 U.S.C.

605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power

-plants. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth_ in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the

=Small: Business Administration at 13 CFR Part 121.

i 11

j

.Backfit Analysis- j 1

F The Commission.has concluded that requiring the facility licensees to prepare the; initial- operator licensing examinations would not be a' backfit pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109.

The proposed change does not result in a modification of or an addition t to systems; structures, components, or the' design of a facility. The change

-does not- affect the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility.

The procedures required to design or operate a facility will not be affected

--by the proposed change. The proposed change would require each nuclear power plant licensee to develop the tests that are used to qualify, in accordance s

with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 55, those nuclear power plant operators whom the nuclear power plant licensee wishes to employ. Development of such 4

tests are not considered to be " procedures... required to... operate a O facility."gThe tests are not applied to th., facility licensee, but rather to

\ -

the operator license applicants. Further, any procedure necessary to develop the test would not be useful in actually " operating" the facility, even if one broadly interprets " operating" as including any action necessary to comply >

with the Commission's regulations with respect'to operation. The organization required to-design or operate-a facility will not be affected because all facility licensees already have a training staff to train and evaluate ,

! applicants for operator licenses'and to train other members of the plant Lstaff, as-required by 10 CFR Part 55 and by 10 CFR 50.120. Therefore, an

. organizational-change is not. required because of this-process change.

12 i

b List of Subjects in-10 CFR Part 55~

Criminal penalties,-Manpower training programs, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

t

! For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended O the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amende and 5 U.S.C. 55 the NRC proposes to adop't the following- /

amendments to 10 CFR Part 55.

PART SS--0PERATOR'S LICENSES

'l. The authority citation for Part 55 continues to read as follows

AUTHORITY: Seca. 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 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842).

Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59 also issued under sec. 306,-Pub.

)

L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61 also issued under secs, 186, 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).

2. In 5 55.8 paragraph (c)(4) is revised to read as follows:

6 55.8 Information Collection Reouirements: OMB Aooroval.

7

(c)

(4) In SS 55.40, 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59, clearance is approved under control number 3150-0101.

4

13

___z____

i 3; 'A new i 55,40 is added to read as follows:

4 55.40 Imolementation.

- (a) ' Power reactor facility licensees shall --

- (1) Prepare the required site-specific written examinations and operatingtestsj (2) Submit the written examinations and operating tests to the Comission for review and approval'  ; M (3) Proctor the site-specific written examinations.

(b) In lieu of requiring a power reactor facility licensee to prepare

-the examinations and tests or to proctor the site-specific written

' examinations, the Comission may elect to perform those tasks.

(c) The Comission will prepare and administer the written examinations and operating tests at non-power reactor facilities.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of , 1997.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.

John C. Hoyle,

Secretary of the Comission.

14 g e , , , . .

w- , en m -

• g UNITE 3 STATES h'$ _

II B NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~

b f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20066 4001

?.%

}

The Honorable Dan Schaefer, Chairman-Subcommittee on Energy and Power Co mittee on Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Chairman:

he TheNRChassentdot'he[0fficeoftheFederalRegisterforoublicatiog55.

enclosed proposed amendments to the Commission's rules in 10 CFR Part This rulemaking, if promulgated, will require facility licensees to prepare the initial operator and senior operator license examinations'and submit them

-to the NRC for review and approval and would preserve the NRC's authority to prepare the examination and tests, as necessary. This proposed action would-allow the NRC to eliminate between $3 million and $4 million in contractor support annually.

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 individals, and to issue licenses as appropriate.' Operator license applicants are required by -

10 CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses,".to' pass an examination satisfying the basic content requirements that are also specified'in the regulation.

- Although the AEA -is not specific as to who will prepare and administer the examination, the NRC has traditionally performed these functions through its staff or contract examiners.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Federal Register Notice cc: Representative Ralph Hall

ja tag .

j **, UNITED STATES ti - NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'U ' ). WASHINGTON, D.C. 30eeH001

'\;*****}2-.

The Honorable' James M. Inhofe, Chairman -

Subcommittee on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private #

Property.and Nuclear Safety- "

' Committee on O.W:rrat =gPublic Works .

United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The NRC has ~ senththe _0ffice of the Federal Register for publicatilon e

~

enclosed proposed amendments to the Commission's rules in zu Cru rart 55t

.This rulemaking, if promulgated, will require facility licensees to prepare the initial operator and senior operator license examinations and submit them

-to the NRC for review and approval and would preserve the NRC's authority to prepare the examination and tests, as necessary. This proposed action would

-allow the NRC to eliminate between $3 million and $4 million in contractor support annually.

Section 107 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, requires the NRC to determine the qualifications of individuals applying for an-operator license, to prescribe uniform conditions for licensing such individuals, and to issue licenses as appropriate. Operator license applicants are required by 10 CFR Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," to pass an examination satisfying the basic content requirements that are also- specified in the regulation.

Although the AEA is not specific as to who will prepare and administer the examination, the NRC has traditionally performed these functions through its staff-or contract examiners.

Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs

Enclosure:

Federal _ Register Notice cc: Senator Bob Graham

PROPOSED 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 such individuals, and to issue licenses os v propriate. Operator license applicants are required by 10 CFR Part 65, " Operators' Licenses," to pass an examination satisfying the basic content requirements that are also specified in the regulation. Although neither the AEA nor Part 55 specify who must prepare, administer, or grade these examinations, the NRC has traditionally performed those tasks itself or through its gLcontractexaminers. Because this has been a costly process in terms of A staff manpower and contractual support, thentaff has evahtaled an N$

alternative approach which would require nuclear power plant licensees to prepare the examinations and submit them to the NRC for review and approval. This approach has been tested and assessed through a d, lLoL voluntary pilot program and has been deemed by theMtafLto_be_ feasible:

Thu hthe NRC is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 55 to require nuclear powFr plant licensees to prepare these examinations and has published NUREG-1021. " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," as guidance. This proposed action will eliminate the need for $3 million to $4 million in contractual support to the NRC, HW TheAstaff's primary objective in shifting responsibility for preparing the initial operator licensing examinations to the power reactor facility lictnsees is to reduce the amount of NRC resources used in this area and satisfy budgetary constraints. This change in policy is part j of the NRC's continuing effort to streamline the functions of the Federal Government consistent with the Administration's initiatives and to accommodate NRC 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, length, and level of difficulty of the examinations, thereby minimizing the impact of the rule change on the operator license applicants.

2. Background In 10 CFR 55.31(a)(3) requires the applicant for an operator's license to submit a written request from an authorized representative of the facility licensee that the written examination and the operating test be administered to the applicant. Furthermore, 10 CFR 55.33(a)(2) states that the Commission will approve an initial application for a license if 1

It finds that the applicant has passed the requisite written examination and operating test in accordance with 55 55.41 and 55.45 or 55.43 and 55.45. These written examinations and o)erating tests determine whether the applicant for an operator's license las 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 recent years, the NRC has spent between $3 million and $4 million per year to retain contractor support for the operator licensing program. In accordance with 10 CFR ' d.12( the NRC staff j andcontractualcostsarerecoveredfromthefacility(lcenseesthat receive examination services.

The proposed rule would change the current practice that the NRC prepare and proctor the initial examination for reactor operators and senior reactor operators and, instead, require each power reactor facility licensee to prepare the entire examination and proctor the written portion of the initial examination. A beckfit analysis has been this action does not constitute a backfit pursuant to performed 10 CFR 50 i-

%109.

4 M0(M,%f

3. Identification and Proliminary Analysis of Alternative Approaches 3.1 Alternative 1 - Tato No Action As discussed in SECY-96-206, the proposed change allows theAstaff to eliminate between $3 million and 54 million in contractor support for examination preparation and administration. The budget request for fiscal years (FYs) 1997 and 1998 is consistent with this proposal and reflects the reduction and eventual elimination of contract support for initial examinations. If the Commission decides not to amend 10 CF' Part 55 as proposed by theAstaff, it would require agency resources to

_le reprogramme~ d Tolncrease the contract support for the operator licensing program or direct examiner resources in each regional office to satisfy the demand for initial licensing examinations and to conduct the licensed operator requalification inspections.

3.2 Alternative 2 - Provide Regulatory Guidance N14 This alternative was rejected because theAstaff considers implementation of the.new process on a voluntary basis alone unworkable over the long N term.JhotrM the NRC refraid frg requirJA;LM[acility_ licensees _ dm mt tgprepare the initial operator ~1icensing examinations, there would be no guarantee that each licensee would elect to prepare these examinations.

Thus, the NRC would continue to require a level of contractual support to perform this function. With the elimination of contractor support and the increased uncertainty about examination quality, theAstaff may no longer have sufficient examiner resources to prepare examinations '[

2

consistent with the scheduling needs of facility licensees. This resource problem is further compounded by the unprodictable nature of the examination workload end by other unanticipated demands on the examiner work force, such as the increase in the number of examination appeals during the pilot examination program.

3.3 Alternative 3 - Amend 10 CFR Part 55 This alternative would require every power reactor facility licensee to prepare the initial operator licensing examinations and to proctor the written portion of the examination. This would enable the NRC to eliminate the use of contractors in the operator licensing program (with the exception of the generic fundamentals examinations) and result in an estimated savings of $3 million to $4 million per year. Under this alternative, the NRC staff who would be relieved of examination preparation duties would undertake other tasks that are currently performed by contractors, including examination administration and inspections of licensee administration of requalification examinations.

4. Regulatory Impact - Qualitative Costs and Benefits Facility L.icensen The NRC currently depends on NRC employees and contractors to prepare and administer the initial operator licensing examinations required by 10 CFR Part 55. NRC contractors also assist in the administration of examinations and in the inspection of facility licensee administration of requalification examinations. In accordance with 10 CFR 170.12(1 h the cost of NRC time spent and any related contractual costs are bil' directly to the facility licensees that receive the examination services.

Under the proposed change, each power reactor facility licensee will -

assume responsibility for preparing the site-specific initial operator licensing examinations at its facilities, thereby allowing the NRC to discontinue the use of contract examiners for that purpose and to divert its staff to perform other tasks currently performed by contractors.

Facility licensees will be expected to prepare and submit proposed examinations (including the written examination, the walk-through, and the dynamic simulator tests) to the NRC based on the guidance contained in NUREG-1021.

The training staffs at power reactor facilities already have the basic knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to evaluate operator performance and develop test items for the initial licensing examination. During the mid-to-late-1980s, the industry's emphasis in the training area increased significantly. All power reactor licensees established formal training programs that were based on a systems approach to training (SAT) and accredited by the National Academy for Nuclear Tr'aining. Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.120 and 55.4, SAT-based

-training programs must include the evaluation of the trainee's mastery 3

of training objectives. NRC inspections of licensee requalification programs for licensed operators have also found that training staffs-generally possess the skills needed to evaluate the trainee's knowledge.

After the NRC reviews and approves an examination, the facility licensee will proctor and grade the written portion based on the guidance contained in NUREG-1021. The 1RC staff will continue to administer and grade the operating tests, reniew and approve the written examination results recommended by the facility licensee, and make the final licensing decisions. The NRC will review and approve these examinations consistent with the guidance provided in NUREG-1021. However, the NRC. '

will not-approve any examination which would have the effect of compromising its statutory responsibility of prescribing uniform conditions for these examinations. Examples of unacceptable deviations-include, but may not be limited to, the use of essay questions in lieu of multiple choice and the administration of open- rather than closed-book examinations.

Feedback from the pilot examination program indicates that the average time spent by a facility licensee to prepare the written examination and o)erating tests was approximately 600 to 800 staff-hours. A portion of t1at time (about 200 hours0.00231 days <br />0.0556 hours <br />3.306878e-4 weeks <br />7.61e-5 months <br />) would have been spent reviewing and assisting with the administration of NRC-developed examinations under the process now in place and should be subtracted from the total. The resulting average burden of aaproximately 400 to 600 staff-hours was somewhat higher than the 400 1ours that NRC staff or its contract examiners typically take to prepare an examination. The extra burden is generally attributable to the facility licensees' lack of familiarity with specific NRC examination expectations and to the additional administrative requirements, such as documenting the source of the examination questions, that are required to maintain examination integrity. It should be noted that some of the facility licensees that participated in the pilot program expended less time than is commonly used.by NRC contractors to prepare the examinations. Furthermore, in a few cases, the examinations that facility licensees submitted for review and approval were, in the judgment of NRC chief examiners, as good or

, better than those prepared by an NRC contractor. Thentaff expattL1 hat M(e most facility licensees will eventually be able to prepare quality examinations in less time than the NRC or a contractor because the facility employees have more detailed knowledge of their facility and easier access to the reference materials required to prepare the examinations.

The fact that contract examiners will not be used by the NRC in the revised examination process will eliminate the need for duplicate sets of reference materials to be provided to the NRC staff and to its contractors by facility licensees. Feedback from the industry in Ng._ response to theptaff's solicitation of public comments on the draft revision of'NUREG-1021 indicated that facility licensees had been spending from 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 proposed process, the facility licensee will submit only materials-which 4

. - - , - - , - -,.--r

are needed-to verify the accuracy of the examination questions. This is considered to be a significant reduction but has not been quantified in

.this analysis.

The additional burden of having to prepare the site-specific initial operator licensing examinations is expected to be offset by reductions g i W art 55 review fees billed to the facility licensees pursuant to 10-CFR 170.12(A). Each facility licensee will be billed only for the time I thint thTNRC' staff spends to review the examination prepared by the facility licensee and to rework the examination, as necessary, to bring 4 it up to NRC standards. Although several-of the draft pilot

. examinations were of poor quality and took the NRC staff more time than expected to review and rework, the staff believes that additional cost reductions will be realized as facility licensees gain experience with the NRC examination requirements and the quality of the facility-developed examinations improves.

This rule change will give facility licensees more control over the cost of their examination services because they will be in a position to manage the quality of the product that is submitted to the NRC. The higher the quality of the examination that the facility licensee submits, the lower the resulting charges. Under the existing examination process, facility licensees are responsible for the entire cost of preparing the examination, even if the NRC contractor's submittal is of poor quality and requires signf ficant rework by the NRC

staff before it can be administered.

Facility licensees will have the option of retaining the services of a contractor to prepare the license examination as the NRC often does under the current examination process. The staff understands that the NRC's examination contractors have expresse)c an interest in providing their services directly to facility licensees.

In summary, the present system for developing licensing examinations relies primarily on NRC contractors to develop the examinations, with the cost then billed to the licensees. These particular examinations y are highly planfv1pecific, requiring time for familiarization with plant procedures and equipmen}$and for the collection and transfer ofinformation f (lib to occur. Hence, to appropriately prepare and administer the

. examinations, the NRC staff and contractors must learn the details of the operation of each specific plant. In effect, this necessitates that the examining staff duplicate expertise already resident at each site simply to prepare-the examinations. Clearly, efficiency could be gained if the NRC efforts were focused on the appropriate scope and depth of i

, the examinations, leaving'the preparation of the detailed material to '

. the licenseppehe-is--is sh belle, pesMicr. tc de se %The proposed l

. rule would eliminate these inefficiencies by placing the responsibility '

for preparing the examinations wttt each licensee. Licensees would eIq still have the option of using contractor assistance in preparing the ,

examinations. There may be an initial period of inefficiency while

, licensees learn the process for preparing these examinationsymf n this g j 3

Mq  !

is expected to be short as the practice of relying on licensee personnel /

or their contractors to prepare this highly technical, plantiiipecific V examination becomes routine. It is expected that with experience the facility licensee will be preparing higher quality examinations requiring less NRC review resources to be used with a larger potential savings to the licensee.

The following table compares the approximate annual costs of performing this function currently versus under the proposed rule. Currently the NRC expends about $3 to 4 million annually on contractor support. Under the proposed rule, it is assumed that each examination requires 500 hours0.00579 days <br />0.139 hours <br />8.267196e-4 weeks <br />1.9025e-4 months <br /> of technical support that will be equally distributed between contractors and the licensee's own in-house staff at labor rates of $120 per hour and $60 per hour, respectively. Assuming 60 examinations per year, translates into an industry burden of $2.7 million. This analysis suggests that this proposed rule has the potential to save about $0.3 to

$1.3 million per year. The savings due to the new process for initial licensing examinations indicated below may not be quite as large as shown because of two additional factors. First, the $3 to $4 million dollars in contractual support includes costs for assisting NRC to inspect requalification examinations given by the licensee's staff.

These activities will also be performed by NRC regional inspectors who will be dual-qualified to perform these functions, as well. Secondly, this analysis does not account for the savings anticipated by significantly reducing the need to prepare and ship an extensive amount of reference materials to enable preparation of the examination by the NRC or its contractors.

Annual Savinas Associated With the Proposed Rule Costs Under Existina Process Contractor Support for $3M - 4M Facility Licensee Examination Preparation Costs Under Proposed Rule Contractor and Licensee $2.7M In-House Support for Facility Licensee Examination Preparation Potential Savings 0.3M - 1.3M The NRC's analysis concludes that the proposed rule results in a potential cost reduction. Further, t re is no statutory requirement le NRC staff believes that the that the NRC perform responsibility these to prepare tasks,pTyL,$

and adminis 2 r the examinations more appropriately rests with the licensee.

6

F Doerator License Aoolicants To the extent possible, the format, content, length, and level of difficulty of the examinations-will remain unchanged, thereby minimizing the impact of the rule change on the operator license applicants.- NRC examiners will continue to review and approve every written examination and operating test before it is administered. The examiners will work with the facility licensee's staff to modify the submitted

> examinations, as necessary, to ensure that the guidance contained in NUREG-1021 is met'and to maintain consistency with prior licensing examinations at both that facility as well as among all other facilities.

If the NRC decides to pre)are the examination in lieu of accepting an examination prepared by tie _ facility licensee, the NRC examiners will use the same procedures and guidance (i.e., NUREG-1021) that the facility licensee would have used to prepare the examination.

NRC Staff As noted in SECY-96-123, the NRC examiners required an average of about 350 hours0.00405 days <br />0.0972 hours <br />5.787037e-4 weeks <br />1.33175e-4 months <br /> to review, prepare for, administer, grade, and document each 4

of the 22 pilot examinations. Assuming the same resource utilization rate and a stable examination workload, thegtaff should be able to gllQ, implement the new examination process and the requalTTIcation inspection program at all power reactor facilities with the same level of direct NRC resources as is currently allotted to the operator licensing program; no contractor support should be required.

The variable nature of the examination workload was evident during the pilot examination program, when the number of examination appeals increased unexpectedly, thereby placing a significant burden on the examiner work force to review and resolve the applicants' concerns.

Currently, the examiners workload is shared approximately equally between the NRC staff and its contractors. Therefore, discontinuance of operator licensing contracts could limit theAstaff's ability to assian NN L" personnel to meet peaks in facility licensee requests for examinations.

The impact of the loss of examiners due to reassignments, transfers, promotions, and other personnel actions will also be larger without the contract examiners available to offset the loss. To address this issue, the NRC plans to have a larger pool of examiners available at each regional office. The exact number of examiners has not yet been determined and will vary from region to region depending on the number and major type of reactors involved. However, it is anticipated that an approximate increase of 10-20% in the number of examiners may be necessary. This will be accomplished by training other staff members performing inspection activities to also be qualified as examiners. As mentioned above, although the overall expenditure of NRC resources in this area should remain the same, having additional qualified examiners would help to alleviate peaks in scheduling.

7

Furthermore, if the quality of an examination prepared by a facility licensee deviates significantly from the acceptable standards, it will be difficult to predict the amount of time necessar nto review or modify the examination'so that it meets NRC standards. y his was the case with  %

several of the. pilot examinations, -ed thegtaff exDects that this problem may expand as more facility-prepared examinations are submitted g

for NRC review. This uncertainty in the examination review process could increase the risk of broken examination commitments. Increasing the number of qualified examiners in each region would also help to alleviate this concern.

NW This rulemaking is expected to take approximately 0.5A staff years to complete and/nocontractorsupportwilivuneedev Mibt 3*

5. Decision Rationale The proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 will require reactor facility licensees to-arepare the entire initial operator licensing examinations and proctor tie written )ortion of the examinations. The qualitative assessment of costs and aenefits discussed above, leads the NRC to the conclusion that the overall impact of the rulemaking will not significantly increase licensee costs and could result in a savings to licensees over time as they become more familiar with the NRC examination guidelines. The improvements in efficiency would be primarily due to the facility employees' better understanding of the plant design and operating characteristics.and their ready access to the reference materials required to pre)are and validate the examinations.

Based on the fact that this action las the potential to provide a cost savings to facility licensees as they become proficient in preparing the examinations, has negligible impact upon operator license applicants, and provides a substantial cost savings to the NRC, Alternative 3 has been selected as the preferred alternative.

6. Implementation 6.1 - Schedule No implementation problems are expected. No effect on other schedules is anticipated.

8

COMMISSION PUBLISHES PROPOSED RULE FOR UTILITY ROLE IN INITIAL REACTOR OPERATOR LICENSE EXAMINATIONS The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published a proposed rule in the Federal Register which would require that all nuclear power plant licensees prepare their initial- reactor operator license examinations subject to NRC approval. Until a final rule is adopted, applicants for operator licenses will continue to be examined by using either NRC-prepared tests or_those prepared by utilities participating voluntarily in an NRC-supervised pilot program begun in 1995.

Reactor operator applicants seeking a license to manipulate the controls of a nuclear power plant must pass both a comprehensive, site-specific multiple-choice, written examination and a practical, hands-ongperating test. The generic fundamentals examination, a separate written test that each applicant must pass to be considered for the site-specific license examination, will continue to be written and administered by the NRC.

The NRC will continue to administer and grade the operating portion of the test, including a control room simulator examination and a one-on-one

demonstration of specific operating tasks. All examinations drafted by utilities M be subject to review, modification, and approval by NRC u

e'xaminers before'the tests are given. have the option of preparing a NRC

~

test or examination in lieu of accepting or modifying one prepared by a o~

utility, 1

w ,r .- e , -- -

- In order for the examinations to be approved b the NRC, they met comply with detailed NRC guidance which deals with su as the-appropriate level of difficulty, maintenance of examination security, and restrictions on test preparation by those significantly involved in training the license-applicants. The guidance document, " Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors" (NVREG-1021), has been revised to implement the new process, 4

h Once,the revised licensing examination process has become fully operational, the NRC staff.will prepare at least one examination annually in each of,the agency's.four regiorjs to ensure,that 3 the .t.TT .Taiiteira L d MGT&'..t 6-proficiencyjinexam'i$ationwriting4andtos(erveasaqualitycheckonthe i process.

Historically, either NRC staff examiners or NRC contractors have prepared and administered all operator license tests. -Btti. April 1995 the NkG vh$4 Commission approved af staff proposal to begin a pilot program %inAnuclear power plant licensees would prepare tha tests under NRC oversight. The Commission took this action to recognize substantial improvements in industry training programs, to make the operator-licensing program more efficient, and-to realize budgetary savings, h _

Thefstaff solicited volunteers for a pilot program in a letter sent to all_ nuclear utilities in August _1995, and launched the program two months

/ . NW later. BetweenOctober1995andApril1996,thepstaffreviewedandapproved o _ 22 operator licensing _ examinations prepared by utilities in accordance with I

2 i

l

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

published NRC guidance._ These examinations were used to test 146 applicants

-for' reactor operator and senior reactor operator licenses, gMb Based on information-provided in agstaff briefing in June 1996gnd the rulemakingplaninSeptember1996,theCommission(inDecember19kauthorized continuation of the pilot program on a voluntary basis to provide time for the rulemaking process.

It is estimated that the proposed license examination 0$ process w,k permit the NRC to save between $3 million and $4 million paid annually to contractors for support of operator licensing and requalification inspection programs, affected by the new rul  % censing of operators for

+

research and test reactors g who will continue to be examined by the N g Atsr

"-'-"'-Ihepresentsystem utilities prepare and administer w

requalification examinations to licensed operators as part of an NRC-approved

' training program gWA404/Jghtudb44j(d.

3 I

J

S %dnws3hn ACRSR-1689 i

/# "' %'o,, UNITED $TATES

/ p NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION POR

]

{* rl ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 A F 61- /

I March 25, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Executive Direct ations wo FROMt John T. Larkins, tive Director Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 10 CFR PART 55, " INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS" During the 439th meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, March 6-8, 1997, the Committee decided to review the proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 55 after reconcili-ation of public comments. The Committee has no objection to the issuance of these proposed amendments for public comment.

Reference:

Memorandum dated March 4, 1997, from David L. Morrison, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, to NRC Office Directors,

Subject:

Proposed Rule - Initial Licensed Operator Examination Require-mants, Amendments to 10 CFR Part 55.

cc: J. Hoyle, SECY J. Blahs, OEDO J. Mitchell, OEDO D. Morrison, RES H. Tovmassian, RES y)

J. Cortez, RES S. Guenther, NRR g g ll g-7-dCN y gAAi N 010013 s< m /- w

. n

, c# Am 2 5 ,,>

'in"a!"7 u-1689 PDR t gq . . _

~

CATEGORY 1

. REGULATORY'INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (RIDS)

ACCESSION NBR 9704010189 DOC.DATE: 97/03/25 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET #

FACIL:

AUTH.NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION LARKINS,J.Tv ACRS Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION CALLAN,J.L. Ofc_of the Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

Discusses 970306-08 ACRS meeting on Reactor Safeguards re proposed amends to 10CFR55, " Initial Licensed Operator Exam Requirements". Committee has no objection to issuance of (

proposed amends for public comment.

DISTRIBUTION CODE: RS01F TITLE: ACRS Letters COPIES RECEIVED LTR -

[ ENCL h SIZE

~ ~

! 1 NOTES: E RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES C ID CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE /NAME LTTR ENCL PD 1 PM 1 L C INTERNAL: FILE CENTER 01 1 NRR/DRPM/PERB 1 ) F NRR/DSSA NUDOCS-ABSTRACT 1

1

)

g m_.__

M ULL TXT Mit-3 1

1

. I RES/DE 1 RES/DET/EIB 1 RES/DRA 1 RES/ DST 1 1

EXTERNAL: NOAC 1 NRC PDR 1 E

C C

U N

E N

'I NOTE TO ALL " RIDS" RECIPIENTSt PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS

-OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROI DESK (DCD) ON EXTENSION 415-2003 O

TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: L"TR 14 ENCL m

.e

'.**'g %9- '

Action: LThadani RLS af ,  % UNITLD STATES Callan y* 't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Cyst p E wAs,nisotoN. o c. russ-coot Jordan o

f June 26, 1997 A g &t-/

Thompson Norry 4'a***/. PDR Blaha Collins. NRR 0"'C' "' Lieberman. OE "C**"

Shelton. IRM Meyer. ADM Geunther, NRR Tovmassian RES MEMORANr>UM TO: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Karen D. Cyr Gengr11 ou 1

(

FROM: John . Secretary

SUBJECT:

ST F REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-079 - PROPOSED RULE - INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS The Commission has approved publication of the proposed rule in the Engh*lal Register for a 75-day public comment period subject to the comments and changes noted below.

(SECY Suspense 7/30/97) 9500056 (HBEH (RES)

The staff should provide additional discussion in the Federal Englater notice (FRN) explaining the safety benefits of this proposed rulemaking indicating, if appropriate, that the NRC focus on operator performance will improve through more direct (i.e., NRC staff replacing contractor personnel) involvement in simulator and walkthrough examinations.

The staff should include in the FRN for the rulemaking a discussion of the importance that the NRC places on ensuring adequate security of examination materials, including reference to the requirements of 10 CFR 55.49. The Commission expects that willful violations of examination security will be aggressively pursued by the staff.

The staff should provide additional legal analysis regarding the basis for determining that the backfit rule does not apply to this rulemaking particularly with regard to modification of or addition to "the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility." This analysis should be used, if possible, to strengthen the staff's position on applicability SECY NOTE: THIS SRM, SECY-97-079, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.

Supp/~ N y

'ffYD OYh hh

' l.. ',.. .

of the backfit rule in the proposed rulemaking package.

The FRH should be revised to solicit public comments on the  ;

following questions.  ;

1. Are there portions of the operator exams that are common to all licensees, and would therefore be more efficiently developed by the NRC?

2. Is the conclusion in the regulatory analysis correct that it would be less costly for each licensee to prepare their own initial operator examinations to be  ;

reviewed, revised, and administered by the NRC, than to have one NRC contractor prepare these exams for all licensed operators with the costs to be reimbursed by licensee fees.

The Congressional letters should be modified as noted below:

1. Add to the end of the sevond paragraph alter "... staff or contract _ examiners." ~ The Commission.now proposes to have facility licensees prepare and administer the site-specific written examinations in recognition of the substantial improvements in industry training programs, to make the operator licensing program more efficient, and to realize budgetary savings for the Federal government.

2. A new third paragraph should lua added to read - After promulgation of the final rules, the NRC will continue to (1) prepare and administer the generic fundamentala examination to operator license candidates, (2) administer and grade the operating portions of the site-specific examination, including a control room simulator examination and a one-on-one demonstration of specific operating tasks, and (3) prepare and administer at least one site-specific written examination annually in each of the NRC's four Regions.

cci Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR DCS

. 6b e

[gS root,,#'o,'

UNIT [D STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j

8*

! ,.. W AWNGTON D C Mt5 6D01 l e

e....

/ June 26, 1997 1

GF FICL OF THE i

5 t C M t T A ft Y COMMISSION VOTING RECORD DECISION ITEM: SECY-97-079 TITLE: PROPOSED RULE - INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS The Commission (with the Chairman and Commissioners Rogers, Dicus, and McGaffigan agreeing) approved the subject paper as recorded in the Starf Requirements Memorandum (SRM) of June 26, 1997. Commissioner Diaz disapproved the paper becausc he continues to believe that the only benefit is reduced IIRC costs and the potential sacrifices include quality, quality assurance, security, integrity of license examination, and the appearance that NRC is relinquishing its responsibility.

This Record contains a summary of voting on this matter together with the individual vote sheets, views and comments of the Commissioners, and the SRM of June 26, 1997.

/

14A~

John C. Hoy]p Secretgry of the Commission Attachments:

1. Voting Summary

2. Commissioner Vote Sheets

3. Final SRM cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Dia:

Commissioner McGaffigan OGC EDO PDR DCS spp /~ of S?OJG9

/ O3'73 2Q 7

VOTING _

SUMMARY

- SECY-97-079 RECORDED VOTES-1107

. Ai>RVD DISAl'RVD ABSTAllJ I'ARTIcIP COMME!JTS DATE CHRM. JACKSON X X 5/21/97 COMR. ROGERS X X 5/16/97-COMR. DICUS X X 5/20/97 COMR. DIAZ X X 5/15/97 COMR. McGAFFIGAN X X 4/14/97 COMMENT RESOLUTION In their vote sheets, Chairman Jackson and Commissioners Rogers, Dieus,- and McGaffigan approved the staff'a recommendation and provided some additional comments. Commissioner Dia:: disapproved this action. Subsequently, the comments of the Commission were incorporated into the guidance to staff as reflected in the SRM issued on June 26, 1997.

r H O T_A T__I._O N_ V O T_K RES10L9R_4HEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary l FROM: CHAIRMAN JACKSON

SUBJECT:

SECY-97-079 - PROPOSED RULE - INITIAL )

LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS l

with Approved _x conenents Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:

See attached conunents .

. b 4o d~ )%/..-

/ SIGNATURE Release Vote / .. ] ,

May 21. 1997 DATE Withhold vote / /

Entered on "AS" Yes X No 1

4 Svy>p(~ o f f}9{S!}?O.??S

}fyf

1 CHAIRMAN JACKSON'S COMMENTS ON SECY 97-079 l l

in SECY 07 079, the staff asked the Commission to;

• Approve the proposed rule for publication

• Certify requirements of Regulatory Flexibility Act have been satisfied

+ Determine that the Backfit Rule does not apply

• Determine that neither an EIS nor an EA has been prepared because this proposed rule is eligible for categorical exclusion per 10 CFR 51.22(c)

I approve the notice of proposed rulemaking for publication in the Federal Register subject to the following (i.e., items (a) through (c) listed below should be addressed prior to publication of the proposed rule):

(a) The staff should provide additional discussion,in the FRN, explaining the safety benefits of this proposed rulemaking. Irrespective of the applicability of the backfit rule, NRC cost savings alone shou;d not be the only basis for imposing a new requirement on licensees.

(b) The staff should discuss,in greater detail, the relationship between operator competence and operator performance. If appropriate, the staff should highlight that, under the proposed rule, the NRC focus on operator performance willimprove through more direct (i.e., NRC staff replacing contractor personnel) involvement in simulator and walkthrough examinations.

(c) Recognizing that there are additional security issues associated with a process that requires licensees to develop examinations, the staff should provide a more robust discussion of examination security and cor sider incorporating more specific security requirements (e.g ,

codify security guidance contained in NUREG 1021) into 10 CFR Part 55 to help further ensure the integrity of examinations and tests. Integrity of the examination process should be explicitly reviewed by NRC examiners.

(d) Weaknesses in the backfit discussion should be addressed. I remain concerned that our determination with regard to the applicability of the backfit rule is too narrow an interpretation. The NhC's Backfitting Guidelines, NUREG 1409, convey that the NRC backfit process, including the Comrnittee to Review Generic Requirements Charter and NRC Management Directive 8.4,'NRC Program for Management of Plant Specific Backfitting of Nuclear Power Plants,' is defined on the nrinciple that new positions or requirements are to meet the standards of the backfit rule oefore they are issued to licensees. Although, I recognize that, as a legal matter, one can argue that the Backfit Rule does not apply, the arguments presented in the proposco rulemaking package do not, in my opinion, pruvide 1) a persuasive justification for backing away from this principle or 2) sufficient analysis to make a determination regarding the applicability of the backfit rule.

Therefore, before I determine whether the backfit rule applies to this rulemaking, the staff should provide additionallegal analysis regarding the basis for determining that this rulemaking does not meet the definition of 'Backfitting' particularly with regard to modification of or addition to 'the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility.' This anaiysis should be used, if possible, to strengthen the staffs position on applicability of the backfit rule in the proposed rulemaking package.

2 (e) With regard to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the staff should determine whether the d

discussion needs to consider the economic impact of this proposed rulemaking on businesses (small entities, if any) that are currently contracted with the NRC to support tht initial operator examination program.

I agree with the staff's determination that this proposed rulemaking meets the criterion for '

categorical exclusion of envl,ronmental review as defined in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(1). Further, I determine that no special circumstances exist and therefore do not request that an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment accompany this rulemaking

activity.

For the longer term, the staff should:

e consider the development of enteria for determining when the NRC will assume the ,

responsibility for writing the operator initial and requalification written examination. These  ;

criteria could be linked, for example, to the overall performance of the training program or identified programmatic tralning weaknesses.

t

. consider whether NUREG 1021, as a regulatory reference document, is sufficient to ensure consistency in licensed operator examinations and whether additional regulatory guidance  ;

for staff review and training or for licensee implementation (e.g, Standard Review Plan, l- Regulatory Guide)is warranted to help ensure consistency in NRC review and in licensee development of initial examinations. ,

. assess the relationship between operator initial qualification and requalification programs and the performance of operators. One of the goals of this assessment should be to determine if improvements can be made to the licensed operator qualification program (both initial and requalification) to help improve the performance of operators.

I concur with Commissioner McGaffigan's suggested modifications to the Congressionalletters

contained in SECY 97 079.

W F

+

,,. - y,,_ _ , .,m,, -s . - -, m .-._ . . m m om,- , . . . - . , - , , , - , . - . ,_. - . . . , , - . . . __ ..e , _

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

NOTATION VOTE ,

RESPONSE SHERT r

TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER ROGERS i

SUBJECT:

SECY-97-079 - PROPOSED RULE - INITIAL #

LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS t

i

$ u g tt,,T Approved Icalm # Disapproved Abstain-ga Not Participating Request Discussion

. COMMENTS:

Ao .'

• AAL yd A h f Q y A qwu'4 $

Qww=e S2A. ///k m.

. Ab SIGNATURBJ Release Vote / X/ k /4,. lf f *)

M ATE Withhold Vote / /

Entered on "AS" Yes x No

.suppe - p/

"'? ,% 70 70 3 } 7 //'

i NOT A TION VOTE RESPONSE SilEET l

t TO: John C. licyle Secretary of the Conunission PROM: COMMISSIONER DICUS SUIDECT: SECY 97 079, PROPOSED RULE -INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS {

Approved X (with comnlents).__ Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:

See attached.

.I b (t (__, Ib4(j #

(jSl{NATyREj

Release Vote /_X_/ 777cw 2o / 9 <> 7 l

/

(2A Withhold Vote / /

Entered on "AS" Yes X No f

St<fPC - Of 0/OfCIVDC 2 fNA

Opmments on SECY.97 0ZR l approve the staff proposal to publish this rulemaking for comment.

However, the reservations I expressed in my vote of October 31,1996 are still applicable. In that vote I indicated: 1f additional experience gained during the continuation of the voluntary program, together with insights gained as a result of the rulemaking process suggest that this may not be the appropriate direction to take, the Commission would need to reconsider its position before approving any final rule changes."

I am not convinced as yet that the experiences of the pilot program and the NRC's activities associated with it have provided sufficient information to suggest that a new direction in reactor operator testing is appropriate At the same time, however, I believe that these same experiences also suggest that there is insufficient information to conclude that we should terminate both the program and the rulemaking process.

Thus, we should proceed with publication of the proposed rule. If the proposed rule is published for comment, the questions posed by Commissioner Diaz in his May 15,1997 vote should be included.

Finally, while I believe cost reduction to be important, I agree with Commissioner Diaz and Chairman Jackson that a reduction in NRC costs should not drive a decision on this issue, I also concur with the comments of Commissioner McGaffigan.

N O___T A T I O N V O T-E BEEPONSE SJiEET TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary FROM: COMMISSIONER MCGAFFIGAN

SUBJECT:

SECY-97-079 - PROPOSED RULE - INITIAL ,

LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS Approved / Disapproved Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion COMMENTS:

I approve the staff's proposal to publish the proposed rule for comment.

However, I b*lieve that the letters to our Congressional oversight committees should be modified to better explain the reasons for, and the limitations on, our proposal to have the facility licensees prepare and administer operator examinations. My suggestions for modifications to the Congressional letters are attached.

b t~r i f/l~s@(\ ,.

SIGNA'fUllE Release Vote /V/ iiI Nf #l 7

'DATE Withhold Vote / /

Entered on "AS" Yes Y, No sufel - Of 7 0-] C 78 %d i ~2,S/9

Commissioner McGaffican's Suoaested Modifications to Conaressional letters

>rocosed in SECY-97 079: i The following should be added at the end of the second paragraph in the i proposed letters after ". . . staff or contract examiners." --

The Commission now proposes to have facility licensees prepare and administer the site specific written examinations in recognition of the substantial improvements in industry training programs, to make the operator licensing program more efficient, and to realize budgetary savings for the Federal government.

A third paragraph should be added to read -

After promulgation of the final rules, the NRC will continue to (1) prepare and administer the generic fundamentals examination to operator license candidates. (2) administer and grade the operating portions of the site specific examination, including a control room simulator examination and a one on one demonstration of specific operating tasks, and (3) prepare and administer at least one site specific written examination annually in each of the NRC's four Regions.

NOTATIO_H VOTE RESPONSE SHERT TO: John C. Hoyle, Secretary  :

FROM: COMMISSIONER DIAZ

SUBJECT:

SECY-97-079 - PROPOSED RULE - INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS Approved Disapproved XX Abstain Not Participating Request Discussion _

COMMENTS:

See Attached Comments A

/I@NATUREj S

Release Vote /^f

./- $~ l 5 '9 )

DATE Withhold vote / /

Entered on "AS" Yes V No

1. # ,wr

Commissioner Diaz' comments on SECY.g7-079 I opposed the rulemaking plan months ago, and I am more convinced now that the rule is inappropriate, with too many important issues not well defined.

My primary objection is that this action could not be expected to result in better quality exams, and it could lead to reduced quality and quality assurance of the process in addition, flaws remain in the package and the regulatory analysis. The issue of backfit does not appear to have been appropriately addressed. A Standard Review Plan is not planned. The cost to licensees appears roughly neutral, although intuitively it should cost more. The economics favor NRC only because we would be able to do other reimbursable work on another topic without exceeding budget or FTE limits. There have been too many deficiencies reported in licensee's training and requalification programs lately to consider this action prudent.

I continue to believe that the Commission should not take this course of action when the only benefit is reduced NRC costs, and the potential sacrifices include quality, quality assurance, security, and Integrity of license examination, and the appearance that we are relinquishing our responsibility. Therefore, I disapprove publication of the proposed rule.

If the proposed rule is approved by the majority, I would ask that the Federal Register Notice be revised to solicit specific public comment on the following issues.

1. Are there portions of the operator exams that are common to alllicensees, and would therefore be more efficiently developed by NRC?

2. Is the conclusion in the regulatory analysis correct that it would be less costly for each licensee to prepare their own initial operator examinations to be reviewed, revised and administered by NRC, than to have one NRC contractor prepare these exams for all licensed operator exams, costs to be reimbursed by licensees fees?

f

. - . , ~ - . v-, , , - , ,r,- . - - , - , ,- .- ._ .- . - - - , .- , .---,-- ,

l f, UNITED ST ATES AE h-I ,

g-( '* %g%,g NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION l

g iy ' g nAtmNotest,c m w w  ;

s,**-..* f June 26, 1997 0FitCE Of THE SfCHIfARY MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Yaren D. Cyr General ouny,el FROM:

John C. Itoflef< /v' f/ Secretary

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-079 - PROPOSED RULE - INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS The Commission has approved publication of the proposed rule in the Federal Register for a 75-day public comment period subject to the comments and changes noted below.

(EDO)

(SECY Suspense 7/30/97)

The staff should provide additional discussion in the Federal Penister notice (FRN) explaining the safety benefits of this proposed rulemaking irdicating, if appropriate, that the NRC focus on operator performance will improve through more direct (i.e., NRC staff replacing contractor personnel) involvement in simulator and walkthrough examinations.

The staff should include in the FRN for the rulemaking a discussion of the importance that the NRC places on ensuring adequate securi.y of examination macerials, including referen e to the requirements of 10 CFR 55.49. The Commission expects that willful violations of examination security will be aggressively pursued by the staff.

The staff should provide additional legal analysis regarding the basis for determining that the backfit rule does not apply to this rulemaking particularly with regard to modification of or addition to "the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility." This analysis should be used, if possible, to strengthen the staff's position on applicability SECY NOTE: THIS SRM, SECY-97-079, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM.

-f56s~}0$050 ^ Eff)

,.-++, .

)

• 2 of the bacufit rule in the proposed rulemaking package.

The FRN should be revised to solicit public comments on the following 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

2. Is the conclusion in the regulatory analysis correct that it would be less costly for each licensee to prepare their own initial operator examinations to be reviewed, revised, and administered by the NRC, than to have one NRC contractor prepare these exams for all licensed operators with the costs to be reimbursed by licensee fees.

The Congressional letters should be modified as noted below:

1. Add to the end of the second paragraph after "... staff The Commission now proposes or contract examiners." -

to have facility licensees prepare and administer the site-specific written examinations in recognition of the substantial improvements in industry training programs, to make the operator licensing program t tre efficient, and to reali:o budgetary savings for the Federal government.

A new third paragraph should be added to read - After 2.

promulgation of the final rules, the PRC will continue to (1) prepare and administer the generic fundamentals examination to operator license candidates, (2) administer and grade the operating portions of the site-specific examination, including a control room simulator evamination and a one-on-one demonstration of specific operating tasks, and (3) prepare and administer at least one site-specific written examination annually in each of the NRC's four Regions, cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers ,

Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Dia:

Commissioner McGaffigan CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR DCS

F3W /

Action: ;Tjladant.RQ

./ ' *? *8: g UNl100 STATES Cys: Callan 3 NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsHiNotoN, o c. 20a00001 Jordan E ihompson G

Morry a June 26. 1997 Blaha

• • • • Collins, NRR-Lieberman, OE

• //cj L'"'

C Shelton, IRM Meyer, ADM Geuntt'er, NRR Tovmassian, RES MEMORANDUM TO: L. Joseph Callan Executive Direct'or tor" Operations Karen D. Cyr Gene 1 oun 1 FROM: Joh- .In e 3ecretary

SUBJECT:

ST F REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-079 - PROPOSED RULE - INITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS The Conunission has approved publication of the proposed rule in the Engiaral Reaister for a 75-day public comment period subject to the comments and changes noted below. 9500056 (HBN (RES) (SECY Suspense: 7/30/97)

The staff should provide additional discussion in the Federal Register notice (FRN) explaining tP.a safety benefits of this proposed rulemaking indicating, if appropriate, that the NRC focus on operator perfonnance wi% improve through more direct (i.e. , NRC staf f replacing cont.ractor personnel) involvement in simulator and walkthrough examinations.

The staf f should include in the FRN for the rulenaking a discussion of the importance that the NRC places on ensuring adequate security of examination materials, including reference to the reqtirements of 10 CFR 55.49. The Conanission expects that willful violations of exami.ation security will be aggressively pursued by the staff.

The staff should provide additional legal analysis regarding the basis for determining that the backfit rule does not apply to this rulemaking particularly with regaro to modification of or addition to "the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility." This analysis should be used, if possible, to strengthen the staff's position on applicability SECY NOTEi- _THIS SRM, SECY-97-079, AND THE COMMISSION VOTING RECORD CONTAINING THE VOTE SHEETS OF ALL COMMISSIONERS WILL DE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM. ,

(.

N&Yh Y '/.? f . ,

I 1, t .

2-of the backfit rule in the proposed rulemaking package.

The FRN should be revised to solicit public comments on the '

following questions.

1. Are there portions of the operator exams that are common to all licensees, and would'therefore be more efficiently developed by the NRC?

2. Is the conclusion in the regulatory analysis correct that it would be less costly for each licensee to prepare their own initial operator examinations to be reviewed, revised, and administered by the NRC, than to have one NRC contractor prepare these exams for all licensed operators with the costs to be reimbursed by licensee fees.

The Congressional letters should be modified as noted below:

1. Add to the end of the second paragraph after "... staff or contract examiners." - The Commission now proposes to have facility licensees prepare and administer the site-specific written examinations in recognition of the substantial improvements in industry training programs, to make the operator licensing program more officient, and to realize budgetary savings for the Federal government.

2. A new third paragraph should be added to read -

After promulgation of the final rules, the NRC will continue to (1) prepare and administer the generic fundamentals examination to operator license candidates, (2) administer and grade the operating portions of the site-specific examination, including a control room simulator examination and a one-on-one demonstration of specific operating tasks, and (3) prepare and administer at lea t. one site specific written examination annually in each of the NRC's four Regions.

cc: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Rogers Commissioner Dicus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan CIO CFO OCA OIG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)

PDR DCS

-