ML20217Q252
| ML20217Q252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 03/03/1998 |
| From: | Peebles T NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | Driscoll R TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9803120111 | |
| Download: ML20217Q252 (21) | |
Text
'
l l
March 3, 1998 Tennessee Valicy Authority ATIN: Mr. Richard F. Driscoll Training Manager Sequoyah Nuclear Plant P. O. Box 2000 Soddy-Daisy. TN 37379
SUBJECT:
MEETING SUMMARIES - NOVEMBER 1997 NRC REGION II TRAINING MANAGERS' CONFERENCE AND JANUARY 1998 NRC REGION II EXAMINATION WORKSHOP I
Dear Mr. Driscoll.:
This letter refers to the Training Managers Conference conducted at the Atlanta Federal Center on November 12 and 13. 1997 and the Examination Workshop conducted at the Richard B Russell Building on January 27-29. 1998.
Representatives'from all utilities in Region II participated in both meetings.
The agenda for the Training Managers Conference is Enclosure 1 and the list of attendees is Enclosure 2.
We appreciate the participation of you and your staff and believe that the goal of providin an o en forum for discussion of I
operator licensing issues was met.
Mr. Gal o. Ch ef of the Operator Licensing i
Branch. Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR). made a presentation on the
]
present status of operator licensing and his slides are Enclosure 3.
During j
the meeting, it was decided that a worksho on operator licensing examination l
writing was needed and would be held at th first of the year. Also, we have tentatively set the date for the 1998 Training Manager's Conference as November 4 and 5.
Additionally. I am enclosing our preliminary schedule for FY 1998 and FY 1999.
dated February 18. 1998, as Enclosure 4.
Please review the schedule and suppiy comments to my staff or myself.
The Examination Workshop was conducted with participation by everyone. A list L
of attendees is Enclosure 5.
A standard Job Performance Measures (JPM) format was reviewed and comments collected by the Southeast Training Managers (SSNTA). with a final version expected this summer.
Concerns on the examination process were collected and is included as Enclosure 6.
These I
concerns were forwarded to NRR for review.
During the workshop, we discussed some of the problems with the initial examination process as it is being 'mplemented be Revision 8 of NUREG-1021.
1 A discussion of those issues is enc osure 7.
It is our opinion that this conference was beneficial and provided an excellent opportunity for open discussion of various concerns about the
' Operator t.icensing process, especially the techniques of writing the licensing r
M'!
examination.
L be -
g eucL ElEEllEllEllM 9eosiao m,.oaoa eon occx osoooaa7 Poa g
c; I-TVA-2
(.
.If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter, please' contact me-at (404) 562-4638.
Sincerely.
Original Signed by
'Ihomas Peebles Thomas A. Peebles Chief -
Operator Licensing and Human Performance Br6nch Division of Reactor Safety Docket Nos.:
50-327 and 50-328 License Nos:
Enclosures:
1.
Agenda for Training Managers' Conference 2.
List of Attendees for 1997 Training _ Managers' Conference 3.
Mr. Gallo's Slides 4.
Region II Examination Schedules for FY 97 & 98 5.
List of Attendees for 1998 Examination Workshop.
6.
Concerns Expressed during Workshop 7.
Discussion of Workshop Issues cc w/encls:
M. Bajestani. Site Vice President.
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant i
l Distribution w/encls:
PUBLIC B. Michael. DRS
- FFICE RII
- DRS 3 SI(MkTURE QM/
WANE-TPEEBLES OkTB 3/ J
/98 3/
/98 3/
/98 3/
/98 3/
/98 3/
/98 3/
/98 COPY?
YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: As\\SEQLTR.JC j
j 1
I
I SOUTHEAST TRAINING MANAGER'S CONFERENCE j
i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region II Atlanta, Georgia
{
Meeting Agenda l
Novenber 12-13,1997 Atlanta Federal Center Wednesday. 11/12/97 8:00 a.m.
Conference Registration Conference Center Conference Room C 8:20 a.m.
Introduction Thomas A. Peebles, Chief, Operator Licensing & Human Performance Branch 8:30 a.m.
Welcome Johns P. Jaudon, Director Division of Reactor Safety
)
9:00 a.m.
Welcome Bruce S. Mallett, Acting Deputy Regional Administrator l
9:30 a.m.
Overview of Pilot Exam Process Thomas A. Ptebles, Chief, Operator Licensing & Human Performance Branch 10:00 a.m.
Break 10:30 a.m.
Examination Communications Ron Aiello, RI!
Exam Development & Coordination 11:00 a.m.
Examination Security Issues Paul Steiner, RII 11:45 a.m.
Lunch 1:00 p.m.
Res'ident Review of Training Paul Harmon, RIl 1:30 p.m.
Lenons Learned from Recent Exams Charlie Payne, RII 2:15 p.m.
Break t
2:30 p.m.
Examination Questions and Answers George Hopper, RII Examples of questions 4:00 p.m.
Me:t with Principal Examiners All 4:30 p.m.
Adjorn ENCLOSURE 1 l
i/
s 2
l' i
- Thursday. 11/13/97 8:30 a.m.
Recap Tom Peebles i
8:45 a.m.
Reactivity Changes and Other Issues Robert M. Gallo, Chief Operator Licensing Branch, NRR i.
l 9:30 a.m.
Medical Exam Issues - Conditions Charlie Payne, RII 10:00 a.m.
Break 10:15 a.m.
.Open Session - Other Issues Training Managers 12:00 p.m.
Adjorn 1
1 ENCLOSURE 1 4
o L
i-L REGION ll TRAINING MANAGERS CONFERENCE NOVEMBER 12-13,1998 Timothy L. Norris Onsite Engineering General Manager o
!~
Brian Haagensen PSHA CP&L Larry Dunlap BK Supv. Ops Cont Trng Rick Gamer HR Supv Ops Tmg Tom Natale RB-Supt Ops Tmg
~
William Noll BK Ops Tmg Supv Max Herrell BK Tmg Mgr Scot Poteet RB Exam Team Leader o
Crystal River - FPC
- Jack Springer CR Supv Simulator Tng Tom Taylor CR Dir Nuc Ops Tmg Duke Power Garmon Clements CT Human Perf Mgr Camden Eflin OC Ops Trng Richard P, Bugert Corp Ops Trng Spec Gabriel Washburn OC Req Team Leader Charles Sawyer Corp Sr Tech Spec Ronnie B. White, Jr MG Trng Mgr E.T. Beadle CT Init Lic Exam Leader William H. Miller CT Tmg Mgr Al Lindsay MG Ops Trng Mgr Paul Stovall OC Mgr Oper Trng Bentley Jones OC Trng Mgr Paul Mabry OC -
Ops Line i
FP&L Maria Lacal TP Trng Mgr Philip G. Finegan TP Ops Trng Supv Dennis L. Fadden SL Services Mgr Jo Magennis Corp Trng Assessment Spec Kris Metzger SL Ops Trng Supv Southern Nuclear (SNC)
J. M. Donem FA Sr Inst Ops. Tmg John C. Lewis HT Trng & EP Mgr Tom Blindauer FA Sr Pit Inst Joe Powell FA Sr Inst Ops Trng Bill Oldfield FA Nuc Ops Trn Supv Southem Nuclear (SNC) (cont'd oaoe 2)
ENCLOSURE 2
2 Southern Nuclear (SNC) (cont'd)
Steve Grantham HT Ops Tmg Supv
' Scott Fulmer FA Mgr Tmg & EP Leon Ray VG, Ops Tmg Supv Virainia Power Frank Winks NA Spv Ops Tmg
' H. Ashley Royal NA Supt Tmg Thomas Toby Sowers SR Supt Tmg i
.BB Bob Greenman BF Tmg Mgr Dick Driscoll SQ Trng Mgr Walt Hunt SO Ops Tmg Mgr James Proffitt SQ Nuc Eng Marvin Meek BF HLT Lead Inst Rusty Proffitt SQ V. C. Summer-SCE&G
' Terry Matlosz SM Mgr Trng Al Koon SM Ops Trng Supv i
ENCLOSURE 2 1
.P
\\
OPERATOR LICENSING INITIAL EXAMINATION 1
RULE CHANGE L
Region ll Training Managers Conference November 13,1997 Robert M. Gallo, Chief, Operator Licensing $Ninoh, NMR 3
~
HISTORY SECY 95-75 (3/95): Proposed clange GL 95-06 (8/95): Solicited vo unteers ROI 95-25 (8/95):
Pilot guidance 10/95 - 4/96:
Original pilot exams o
5/1/96:
CRGR briefing o
SECY 96-123 (6/96):
Pilot results o
SECY 96-206 (9/96):
Pros and cons o
GL 95-06, Sup.1 (1/97): Voluntary o
continuation of pilot process NUREG-1021, Interim Rev. 8 (2/97) o SECY 97-79 (4/97):
Proposed rule o
62 FR 42426 (8/97):
Proposed rule o
THE PRCPOS$D RULE
- 3. A new s 55.40 is accee to reac as follows:
155.40 Imp ementation.
(a)
Power reactor facility licensees shall--
(1)
Prepare the required site-speci"ic written examinations anc operating tests; (2) Submit the written examinations and operating tests to the Commission for review and approval; and Proctor and grade the NRC-spproved site-specific written exsmiriationa.
<-=="-=*ee,,e,
,.,,++,
THE REST OF THE RULE (b)
In lieu of requiring a specific power reactor facility licensee to prepare the examinations and tests or to proctor anc grade the site-specific written examinations, the Commission may elect to perform those tas<s.
(c) The Commission will prepare anc administer the written examinations and operating tests at non-power reactor facilities.
I 1
1 I
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
~~
1e \\ 9C wi. prepare one exam per Region per :ca encar. year
. Faci.'ity licensees are expectec to use t7e guicance in l\\ UREG-1021 l\\ RC wi ! approve ceviations
\\ 9C wi, not compromise statutory responsi3iities NRC is committec to maintaining quality, level of difficu ty, consistency, anc security
- NRC intends to use its full enforcement authority against persons who willfully compromise an exam in violation of 56.49
BACKGROUND
+ Goal was to improve efficiency whi e maintaining effectiveness E iminate reliance on NRC contractors (except GFE)
Increase facility involvement Maintain examination qua ity anc cifficu ty Remain consistent wit, t,e Act and Part 55 Changes. should be transparent to license applicants
- Initial licensing program was not broken
=
MILESTONE SCHEDULE
' 0/2' /97:Comnient perioc enc'ec
- 4/1/98:
Reso.ve comments; revise ru e and l\\ UREG
02' ; seek Office concurrence 4/98:
- 5/22/98:
Oatain Office concurrence anc' ce.iver to EDO 6/98:
Obtain EDO anc Commission concurrence 7/98:
3ublis, the final rule and Revision 8
' 2/31/98: Imp ement rule anc Revision 8
i j
I:.
oT T
O p
h h
r F
ee T
1 S
1 r i
o Pg Y
E r
x i
o
/n 9u i i a
r l
9c 9g o n 1
a t
t e
a 7e 6h t a 9
m is s
9 s
l l
n C
2 5
u g
Y 2
l t
l t
s 1
5 7
4 W
e 3 9 9
9 9
9 so 4
7 9
r 1
2
/2 3
1 4
R t
f
/
i
/
/
tt O 1
5%
8%
5%
ao 4
9 3
4 e
p n
2 n
p e
e O
1 a
e 3
5 8
5 p
E 9
8 9
9 9
e x
1 1
0 0
R X
l 3
9 5
3 8
r
/
/
/
/
a a
a 5%
8%
5%
O 1
A m
4 7
4 4
t r
i e
1 n
M g
p p l
1 eu 2 8 4
7 4
8 8
8 9
T R
ns 4 6 3
8 3
2 oR E
9 5
5 d
/
/
/
/
O 1
t io A%
5%
8%
5%
a S
nn 9
5 4
l A
g e
U L
R 2
1 1
3 0
3 8
W T
9 9
9 9
9 S
O 6
0 6
6 r
/4
/4
/4
/3 5
R S
it a
2%
% 9%
1 1
t O n
5 0
4 2
e d
0 6
4 n
o 2
1 O
9 n
3 3
8 p
9 89 9
9 9
eS 5
7 7
e
/4
/2 6
/6 5
fgS 2%
0%
% 9% %
raR 1
/
1 cl t O 4
4 1
i R
9 3
g 6
n nO 2
1 9
2 9
5' 8 3
8 9
9 9
T S 6'
1 3
/0
/ 9' 0
2 oR 1
1
/
/
2% 0%
% 9% %t O 1
2 5
a 4
2 l
7 4
1 1i 1
r i
FY99 INITIAL EXAM RESULTS l
Fcbruary 20,1998
{
RO SRO-l SRO-U TOTAL Date Plant Chief Pass nrs Pass Pass 0
9/28/98 Sequoyah MEE 4
I 10/5/98 Harris RFA 4
2 3
lj 10/19/98 B. Ferry WFS write DCP 4
4 11/30/98 Oconee &
MEE 6
6 12/14/98 11/30/98 St Lucie &
RSB 15 15 12/14/98 1/25/99 McGuire &
DCP 14 1
15 2/8/99 1/25/99 C. River &
RFA 10-12 2/8/99 3/15/99 Watts Bar &
RSB 7
5 3/29/99 3/29/99 Surry &
RFA 6
2 4
4/12/99 5/17/99 Catawba &
15-18 5/31/99 5/10/99 Farley 2
6 Watts Bar ? 6/99 6
4 8
07/ /99 Robinson?
4 1
1 07/ /99 C. River?
08/ /99 Turkey Pt?
20 9/15/99 Summer?
4 09/ /99 Sequoyah ?
s9
'?' d:signates tentative No initial exarns scheduled for:
North Anna i
710/18/99 Brunswick-9 candidates 710/ /99 B. Ferry 4r, 4i, 4u
?10/25/99 Hatch 8r?
710/ /99 St. Lue:e 2 wk 712/13/99 Vogtle-Sr, Si, 2u ENCLOSURE 4
i FY 98 INITIAL EXAM RESULTS
[10/1/97 - 9/30/90]
Fcbru;ry 20,1998 RO SRO-1 SRO-U TOTAL Exam PLANT CHIEF PASS PASS PASS PASS Week 10/14/97 St. Lucie &
GTH 6
6 1
1 7
7 10/20 11/14/97 Cr. River RETAKE RFA 1
1 1
1 12/1/97 Summer JFM 8
8 8
8 i
12/1/97 Catawba &
DCP 2
3 4
5 6
6 14 12/15 3/2/98 Farley RETAKE RFA 1
1 5
2/23/98 Robinson + 1 op RSB 3
1+1 1
retake 4/13/98 Vogtle (Mellen write)
GTH 4
2 6
5/11/98 Brunswick &
DCP 5
3 3
11 5/25/98 w Sequoyah Retake +
LSM 3
3 6/1/98 op RFA RSB 6/29/98 Crystal River MEE 6
6 6/22/98 St. Lucie &
GTH 8
4 8
7/6/98 8/10/98 Turkey Point DCP S
8 8/17/98 North Anna &
RSB 8
1 6
15 8/31 9/28/98 Sequoyah MEE 4
4 54 28 26 108 RESULTS TO DATE 16 17 5
6 7
7 28 30
'&' designates examinations that will require two weeks to administer l
No exams scheduled for B. Ferry Oconee Harris Surry Hatch W. Bar McCu!re ENCLOSURE 4
r:
ll*
l l
REGION ll WORKSHOP - OPERATOR LICENSING EXAMINATIONS JANUARY 27 - 29,1998 l
l t
Exam Workshop Attendees l
Charlie Brooks Asst Manager, Ops Trg -INPO FranP.S. Jaggar Examiner-WD Associates i
j Ken Masker Senior Licensed Instructor Rochester Gas & Electric, R. E. Ginna NPP l
Bob Niedzielski Exam Developer-Baltimore Gas & E!ectric James F. Belzer Instructor - CCNPP/BGE Max Bailey Region lli Operator Licensing Examiner CP&L l
Gregg Lualam LOR - Supervisor - Brunswick William Noll Supt Ops Training - Brunswick j
Tony Pearson initial Training - Brunswick i
Richard Edens LOR Instructor - Brunswick Rick Garner Sup - OTU - Banis i
Terry ~oler Project Tech Spec-Harris Wiley Killette Project Tech Spec - Harns Scott Poteet Exam Team - Robinson Bill Nevins Instruct Tech - Robinson Crvstal River - FPC Alan Kennedy Senior Licensed Instructor Johnie Smith Training Supervisor Jack Springer Training Supervisor l
Duke Power Alan Whitener Ops Instructor Edward A. Shaw Ops Instructor Bobby Ayers Ops Ins +.ructor - Oconee Steve Helms Training Super Charles Sawyer initial Training - McGuire i
Reggie Kinvay initial Trining Lead E. T. Beadle NuclearInstructor.CBS James K. Black Nuclear Instructor -QRS Gabriel Washburn Nuclear instructor - QRS Camden Eflin Team Leader - H_P - Oconec (Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd - See page 2)
ENCIOSURE 5 l
e 1
i l
2 l'
(Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd)
FP&L Ivan Wilson Operations Manager Kris Metzger
' Ops Training Supervisor'- St. Lucic.
- Roger Walker instructor - St. Lucie j
Tim Bolander Instructor - St. Lucie J
David P. Clark Instructor-St. Lucie Maria L. Lacal Training Manager -Iurkev Point Rich Bretton
' Ops Cert Trng Sup - Turkey Point Philip G. Finegan Ops Trining Supervisor - Turkey Point Michael E. Crolteau Cont Trng instructor-Turkev Point Southern Nuclear (SNC)
Joel L. Deavers Senior Instructor -Eaday Scott Fulmer Training & Emergency Preparedness Manager - Farlev Gerard W. Laska Training Instructor-Farlev Charlie Edmund '
Plant Instructor-Hatch David Gidden Training Supervisor-Hatch Ed Jones Plant instructor-Hatch Dan Ecukanec Ops Trng Supv - Vogtle Fred Howard Plant instructor-Vogtle Viroinia Power.
Keith Link Requal.... - North Anna Ed Trask instructor-North Anna Joe Scott Supervisor Operations Training - North Anna Ken Grover :
Senior Instructor (NUC)- Surry Harold McCallum Supervisor Ops Training - Surry
. Paul K. Orrison Ops Instructor - Syrty 31%
Ray Schorff
' Instructor - Browns Ferry Denny Campbell instructor - Browns Ferry Bob Greenman Training Manager-Browns Ferry Marvin Meek Instructor - Browns Ferry A. R. Champion Instructor-Browns Ferry i
Rick King Sr Ops Instructor-Seauovab.
I '-
Frank Weller Instructor-Seauovah f
Phillip H. Gass Sim Instructor-Seauovah Ed Keyser Instructor - Secuovah Harold Birch Instructor - Seouovah (Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd - See page 2) i
c L.,
t y,
[..
i, e,
3 i
i-(Exam Workshop Attendees cont'd)
TVA cont'd -
Terry Newman.
. SRO Instructor-Watts Bar Rancy Evans
. SRO Instructor-Watts Bar.
Rick O' Rear:.
Sift Manager-Watts Bar i
1
,V. C. Sugingy-SCE&G l
' Perry Ramicone.
Ops Instructor Bruce L. Thompson Ops Instructor
-l William R.' Quick Ops instructor l
I
}
l 1
i
l
}
i
- CONCERNS EXPRESSED DURING THE REGION 11 EXAMINATION WRITING WORKSHOP
)
The following is a condensation of the concems received from the attending facilities during the January 1998 Workshop on Examination Writing. The workshop attendees and I would l
appreciate your consideration of the concems during your revision to the Examiner Standards.
I 1)
Security requirements are too restrictive, considering the limited resowces available. Also, more gu! dance on minimum security expectations is needed.
l (three corriments) 2)
The NRC should develop the sample plan as this would save both utility and NRC l-resources. (two comments) 3)
If independent groups generate the audit and licensing exams, some overlap should be allowed. (one comment, also i believe the standards allow this now?)
L 4)
The K/A catalog contains errors and omissions and should be corrected, or at the least an errata sheet of know orrors should be published. (two comments) 5)
if an exam bank item has not been used during the licensing class, the exaro item should be considered at " face value" for the licensing exam. (one comment) 6)
The length of time atiowed for written exams should be revised to a more reasonable period. Does this time also apply to continuing education.
3 l
(one comment, I had commented that the length of time did not apply to.
requalification exams the utilities conducted.)
l 7)
The NRC should periodically publish problem areas encountered during the exam process and distribute it to all training mansgers. (one comment) 8)
The facilities appreciated the workshop. They want Region 11 to have another workshop in about six months. The next time they want to concentrate on good and bad examples of written and operating test items and the sample plan. (six comments) l i
j t
k 1
ENCWSURE 6 l
p, 7
4 V'
DISCUSSION OF WORKSHOP ISSUES During the workshop we discussed some of the problems with the revised i
o]erator licensing examination process as implemented by Revision 8 of l
NJREG-1021. The following were three of the principle issues discussed and a summary of the response given by NRC's Region II Operator Licensing staff.
I
]
1.
Why has exam development take so many man-hours? Some facilities did' l
not fully understand our methodology, concepts and expectations for developing the initial examination such as content validity, plausible i
.distractors and other psychometric issues. The NRC did not recognize I
the variance across facilities in their depth of understanding. As a result, some facilities submitted examinations with the quality lower i
than expected and these. examinations did not meet the standards-
)
described in NUREG-1021. The amount of resources required to modify the i
examinations to meet the standards was more than either the facility or the NRC had anticipated. There was general agreement during the workshop that more discussion with the facility examination writers and
)
reviewers, such as these workshops, would better align the facilities
- original products with the standards of NUREG-1021 and reduce the resources required to develop an acceptable examination.
2)
Why has the NRC raised the level of difficulty of the examinations?
Many participants felt that the NRC was raising the bar." We stated that the purpose of the initial operator licensing examination is to test valid knowledges, skills and abilities required to safely carry out duties as a licensed operator at a specific facility.
The. examination should be written to a discrimination level not specific to the quality of the facility's training program, but so that a minimal competent operator, with' specific site knowledge and skills, will pass the examination.
Therefore, the level of difficulty of the examination should not vary significantly from site to site.
The concept of discrimination validity is that a given test item is written at a level which will discriminate between a competent and loss than competent
. operator.
In some cases, the NRC examination reviews have adjusted the discrimination validity (difficulty) in order to achieve region-wide consistency on what is required of a competent operator. We try to create an examination such that an applicant who is capable of safely operating the plant will achieve a score of 80 percent or greater.
For facilities that prepare candidates beyond the minimally qualified level, we would exoect the average score to be higher.
Historically, nationwide NRC examination scores have averaged approximately 85 percent, which is a reasonable benchmark and expectation for a discriminating criterion-referenced examination.
-I explained that I use a mental-description of a minimally competent o)erator to decide if the question is one that he/she needs to know and L
w1 ether the overall exam is targeted for that person to achieve a score of 80%.
An 80% score on the written examination for a minimal competent candidate does not correlate to an 80% pass rate and we have no goal ENCIOSUP2 7
l regarding pass rate. Overall, we did not intend to change the 'bar' and L
are reviewing results; to ensure our practice meets our intent.
b 3)
Why have sme applicants not been able to cornplete the examination in the four hours currently allowed? Prior to the current examination i- -
revision, we had two-actions in the implementation phase. One was the l
improvement in the plausibility of distractors and the other was.
l standardizing the percent of comprehension and analyses questions.
In the last two years, we have improved our identification of poor distractors.
A question does.not have discrimination validity if the distractors (i.e. incorrect answers in a. multiple choice test) can be eliminated by a less than com)etent operator due to psychometric flaws l
in the question structure. T1ese types of-flaws are detailed in Appendix 8 of NUREG-1021. At the workshop, several examples of these psychometric flaws were illustrated and discussed. Answering questions with incorrect but plausible distractors should not take longer for a candidate who is sure of the answer.- but does take loriger for the candidate who must eliminate each distractor. Also, in general, i
comprehension / analyses cuestions require more thought process than memory level questions anc consequently more time. The requirement for a fifty percent minimum of higher level questions was based on a review of the last two years of examination audits and an effort to standardize the level of examination difficulty.
j i
We stated that the four hour time limit for the written examination is.
-l l
under review by the NRC for possible extension of the limit and that extensions may be granted in accordance with the examiner standards.
l l
i
,