ML20195G633: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (StriderTol Bot change) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| number = ML20195G633 | | number = ML20195G633 | ||
| issue date = 05/29/1998 | | issue date = 05/29/1998 | ||
| title = Responds to | | title = Responds to ,In Which Recipient Made Two Recommendations on Proposed Final Rule Amend to 10CFR55, Initial Licensed Operator Exam Requirements. Staff Intends to Seek Commission Approval | ||
| author name = Callan L | | author name = Callan L | ||
| author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) | | author affiliation = NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| case reference number = FRN-64FR19868, RULE-PR-55 | | case reference number = FRN-64FR19868, RULE-PR-55 | ||
| document report number = AF62-2, AF62-2-009, AF62-2-9, NUDOCS 9906160123 | | document report number = AF62-2, AF62-2-009, AF62-2-9, NUDOCS 9906160123 | ||
| title reference date = 05-08-1998 | |||
| package number = ML20195E260 | | package number = ML20195E260 | ||
| document type = INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM, MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE | | document type = INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL MEMORANDUM, MEMORANDUMS-CORRESPONDENCE | ||
| Line 20: | Line 21: | ||
{{#Wiki_filter:' | {{#Wiki_filter:' | ||
AF vt-2. | AF vt-2. | ||
L | L o% | ||
4'*5L - | |||
. fp A l | |||
g UNITED STATES g- | |||
] | |||
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20086-0001 | |||
\\;,g h-- | |||
May 29, 1998 Dr. Robert L. Seale, Chairman-L Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission | |||
~ Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 | |||
==SUBJECT:== | ==SUBJECT:== | ||
PROPOSED FINAL AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 55, " INITIAL LICENSED i-y | PROPOSED FINAL AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 55, " INITIAL LICENSED i-y OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS" l | ||
l | |||
==Dear Chairman Seale:== | ==Dear Chairman Seale:== | ||
l 1 am responding to your letter of May 8,1998, in which you made two recommsndations on the subject amendment to 10 CFR Part 55: first, that the amendment should be issued for use by the industry and, second, that the staff should analyze the results of the pilot examinations to ensure that the quality and level of difficulty of the examinations are consistent across the regions. | l 1 am responding to your letter of May 8,1998, in which you made two recommsndations on the subject amendment to 10 CFR Part 55: first, that the amendment should be issued for use by the industry and, second, that the staff should analyze the results of the pilot examinations to ensure that the quality and level of difficulty of the examinations are consistent across the regions. | ||
With regard to the first recommendation, the staffintends to seek the Commission's approval as soon as the affected offices and the Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) concur in bs final rulemaking package. A memorandum requesting the concurrence of the office directors was issued on May 13,1998, and the CRGR is scheduled to review the final rule during its meeting on June 10,1998. | With regard to the first recommendation, the staffintends to seek the Commission's approval as soon as the affected offices and the Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) concur in bs final rulemaking package. A memorandum requesting the concurrence of the office directors was issued on May 13,1998, and the CRGR is scheduled to review the final rule during its meeting on June 10,1998. | ||
With regard to the second recommendation, the staff is analyzing the examination pass | With regard to the second recommendation, the staff is analyzing the examination pass rates and the average written examination grades on a regional basis to determine whether the results are consistent. In response to the discussion in your letter, the staff is also 4 | ||
rates and the average written examination grades on a regional basis to determine whether the results are consistent. In response to the discussion in your letter, the staff is also | considering performance measures that might provide insights with respect to the overall effectiveness of the revised examination process. | ||
I We~ apprecia'e the Committee's comments and will keep the ACRS informed of sig'dicant t | |||
Sincerely, i | activities in this area. | ||
Sincerely, i | |||
I L | |||
i i | |||
tive Director | n | ||
-) | |||
Ex tive Director for Operations, | |||
SECY OGC-OCA'- | j cc: | ||
OPA CFO | - Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus | ||
' Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan SECY OGC-OCA'- | |||
9906160123 990608 PDR PR | OPA CFO | ||
' CIO 9906160123 990608 | |||
\\ | |||
PDR PR 1 | |||
L, 55-64FR19968 PDR i | |||
- 0 D0 YO 0 b}} | |||
Latest revision as of 18:31, 10 December 2024
| ML20195G633 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/29/1998 |
| From: | Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Seale R Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20195E260 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-64FR19868, RULE-PR-55 AF62-2, AF62-2-009, AF62-2-9, NUDOCS 9906160123 | |
| Download: ML20195G633 (1) | |
Text
'
L o%
4'*5L -
. fp A l
g UNITED STATES g-
]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20086-0001
\\;,g h--
May 29, 1998 Dr. Robert L. Seale, Chairman-L Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~ Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED FINAL AMENDMENT TO 10 CFR PART 55, " INITIAL LICENSED i-y OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS" l
Dear Chairman Seale:
l 1 am responding to your letter of May 8,1998, in which you made two recommsndations on the subject amendment to 10 CFR Part 55: first, that the amendment should be issued for use by the industry and, second, that the staff should analyze the results of the pilot examinations to ensure that the quality and level of difficulty of the examinations are consistent across the regions.
With regard to the first recommendation, the staffintends to seek the Commission's approval as soon as the affected offices and the Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) concur in bs final rulemaking package. A memorandum requesting the concurrence of the office directors was issued on May 13,1998, and the CRGR is scheduled to review the final rule during its meeting on June 10,1998.
With regard to the second recommendation, the staff is analyzing the examination pass rates and the average written examination grades on a regional basis to determine whether the results are consistent. In response to the discussion in your letter, the staff is also 4
considering performance measures that might provide insights with respect to the overall effectiveness of the revised examination process.
I We~ apprecia'e the Committee's comments and will keep the ACRS informed of sig'dicant t
activities in this area.
Sincerely, i
I L
i i
n
-)
Ex tive Director for Operations,
j cc:
- Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus
' Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan SECY OGC-OCA'-
' CIO 9906160123 990608
\\
PDR PR 1
L, 55-64FR19968 PDR i
- 0 D0 YO 0 b