Latest revision as of 11:00, 16 December 2020

Text

Discusses Regulatory History Procedures for 10CFR55, Initial Licensed Operator Exam Requirements.Completed Index for Rule to Rdb (T6-D59) Should Be Forwarded by 990630
	ML20195G523
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/30/1999
From:	Mendiola D; NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Guenther S; NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20195E260	List: ML20195G523; ML20195G547; ML20195G579; ML20195G597; ML20195G624; ML20195G633; ML20195G670; ML20195G722; ML20195G775; ML20195G802; ML20195G817; ML20195G832; ML20195G844; ML20195G851; ML20195G857;
References
	FRN-64FR19868, RULE-PR-55 AF62-2, AF62-2-002, AF62-2-2, NUDOCS 9906160095
	Download: ML20195G523 (2)
	v • d • e

- _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ - - _ - - - - - -- - ---

Nof u g i UNITED STATES

' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565-0001 i

p$

\ ** *# April 30, 1999 MEMORANDUM TO: Siegfried Guenther, NRR FROM: Doris Mendiola, RDB/DAS/ADM

SUBJECT:

REGULATORY HISTORY PROCEDURES -lNITIAL LICENSED OPERATOR EXAMINATION REQUIREMENTS (10 CFR PART 55)

In a memorandum dated April 5,1985 (copy attached), the Executive Director for Operations established procedures for ensuring that a complete regulatory history is compiled for each rulemaking action undertaken by an office under his purview. These procedures are applicable to any proposed or final rule submitted for publication in the Federal Reaister after April 5,1985.

Briefly, these procedures require that-Documents of central relevance to a rulemaking be maintained, and identified for a source of access; and An index of documents comprising the regulatory history be developed and submitted to the Rules and Directives Branch (RDB) within 60 days after the rulemaking is completed.

The rulemaking that amends its regulations to allow nuclear power facility licensees to prepare, proctor and grade the required written examination and to prepare the required operating tests that the NRC uses to evaluate the competence of individuals applying for operator licenses at those plants, was published on April 23,1999 (64 FR 19868).

You should forward the completed index for this rule to the RDB (T6-D59) by June 30,1999. In your transmittal memorandum to NUDOCS, please include the title of the rule, the complete Federal Reoister citation, and a listing of all parts affected by the document.

You should place the designator "AF62-2"in the upper right-hand corner of each document centrally relevant to the rulemaking, including the transmittal memorandum, that you send to the Nuclear Document System (NUDOCS), Mail Stop OWFN P1-17. Each document transmitted to NUDOCS that can be made available to the public should be marked "PDR"in the upper right-hand corner of the front page. Documents that cannot be made available to the public should be marked "CF"(Central Files) in the upper right-hand corner of the first page. In addition, CF documents should be grouped after the PDR documents to streamline the microfiching process. .

s 9906160095 99060b PDR PR

-55 64FR19868 PDR f bIk UU . .

y+- ..

i S. Guenther ' .2

' Check all attachments to each document marked "PDR" to ensure that no documents to be

. withheld are inadvertently released. SECY Papers conceming rulemaking issues are generally

released to the public. The Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) generally contains instructions from SECY that indicate when and if a SECY Paper, the SRM, and Commission

, vote sheets may be'made available to the public. Any questions concerning the release of any ,

l 1 SECY Paper, SRM, or Commissioner vote sheet must be coordinated with the Office of the - i Secretary Commission vote sheets may be released to the public if so stated on the vote sheet.

Commission vote sheets and SECY Pacers that are to be withheld. should be marked " Central- ,

Files oniv."

]

~

Approximately 2 weeks after you submit the documents to the NUDOCS'you should receive a computer printout listing the documents you submitted to the NUDOCS. If you do not receive ;

this printout within 2 or 3 weeks, call the Customer Support Center, OClO (415-1234), you will ;

then be transferred to NUDOCS. !

i in addition, please proofread the codified text of the final rule as it was published in the Federal I Register and inform'us of any errors that may have occurred in typesetting the document. RDB will arrange for an appropriate correction before the codified text is included in the subsequent edition of the Code of Federal Regulations.

. If you cannot meet the June 30,1999, deadline, please let me know. If you have any questions call me at 415-6297.

Attachment:

As stated i

i l'

o

'l l

l 1

J C

l

i 8 \ UNITED STATES NUCLEAR RECULATORY COMMISSION

,y $ wAtenmorow, p. c. seses f

\.....) APR 0 51985 MEMORANDUM FOR: Robert B. Minogue, Director Office of tvuclear Regulatory Research Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation John G. Davis, Director Office of Nuclear Material Safety & Safeguards James M. Taylor, Director Office of Inspection and Enforcement Patricia G. Norry, Director Office of Administration Guy H. Cunningham, III Executive Legal Director G. Wayne Kerr, Director Office of State Programs Clemens J. Heltemes, Jr., Director Office for Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data James R. Shea, Director Office of International Programs FROM: William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

REGULATORY HISTORY PROCEDURES In a. February 15. 1985 memorandum to Chairman Palladino, issued jointly with the Office of General Counsel. I informed the Chairman that procedures would be developed for the creation of a regulatory history of each proposed and final rulemaking initiated by the offices reporting to the EDO.

This memorandum outlines the individual office responsibilities for the implementation of the regulatory history procedures. The objective of the regulatory history is to ensure that all documents of central relevance to a particular rulemaking are identified and accessible. This will tacilitate the resolution of any issues that may arise concerning the interpretation of a particular regulation. The following procedures wi.11 be applicable to any proposed or final rule submitted to the Federal Register for publication after the date of this memorandum. The Rules and Procedures Branch, Office l

%0Vj 'inp3 ? - t y y- kf'" r

}. ;;p , :

2 ~

$1 ; ,,: ,

f t Jof Administration, will provide further information on'these procedures, as necessary, in the periodic revision of'the NRC Regulations Handbook,

~NUREG/BR-0053.

Program Office Responsibilities Each office that sponsors a proposed or final rulemaking shall ensure'that:.

1. all documents of central relevance to the factual basis.

coverage, meaning, and historical development of the rulemaking are identified, and maintained during the course of the' rulemaking. fAlthough the Project Manager's judgment will_be necessary in some instances to determine whether specific I

documents are of " central relevance" to a" rulemaking, the-following documents should be included:

. - .the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES) Independent LReview-Package (containing the RES recommendations on whether to proceed with the rulemaking, the sponsoring Office's om reconnendation to proceed with rulemaking, and the evaluation

.of.the rulemaking proposal against the six criteria required for the RES Independent Review)

. l prior drafts of the rulemaking transmitted for interoffice review

. formal Office comments on the drafts submitted for interoffice review-

. source documents relied upon in preparing the draft rule (e.g.

research studies,. consensus standards endorsed in the draft rule)-

.. documents which synthesize or organize data in a form relied upon in the draft rule

. supporting documentation such as the regulatory analysis, the Cost Analysis. Group Report, environmental assessment or environmental' impact statement, regulatory flexibility

< analysis, and OMB Clearance Package-

.. public comments submitted.in response to a Petition for Rulemaking, an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, or a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'

. Committee.to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) minutes and reconmendations concerning the draft rule.

l .. the ACRS comments on the draft rule E' J

, 1

(%

e, w- _

G' .

l.

J. - 3'-- l l

?

=. -the Commission Paper transmitting the draft rule to the Comission or the memorandum-transmitting the rule to the.

EDO for approval

. the transcript or.sumary of the Connission meeting or briefing .

on consideration of the draft rule.

. the Staff Requirements memo containing the Comission

. recommendations' on the draft rule

. the Federal. Register Notice for the rule (Petition for Rulemaking Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice of Proposed Register noticeRulemaking, Final the issued concerning Rule, ruleor any)other Federal

. any other documents of central relevance (e.g. interagency correspondence, agreement state correspondence)

Documents that fall within any of the above categories must be typewritten rather than handwritten to permit conversion into microfiche by the' Document' Control System (DCS). If the only record of substantive office review comments on a draft

. rule are contained as handwritten annotations on the draft l itself, the Project Manager should sumarize these coments in a typed note to the file..

2. At the completion.of a particular rulemaking action, i.e.

publication'of the proposed or final rule, the project manager shall compile an index of all documents that comprise the regulatory history file. The Project Manager is responsible for' identifying a source of access for each document listed.

For internal documents, this will require the Project Manager to ascertain whether each document listed-is available in the DCS. The Project Manager must ensure that any internal document not already available in the DCS is placed in the DCS, and that the record's accession number is identified for each document on the index.. In the case of published documents (e.g. NUREGS, l NTIS publications, books, articles,'etc.), it will be sufficient l to include the bibliographic citation for that document. The l Project Manager shall forward the completed index to the Rules E and Procedures Branch, Office of Administration, within sixty daystafter the completion of the rulemaking. The title of the index, and the file, should be the.name of the rule and applicable NRC citation (e.g. 10 CFR Part 50) as it appears in the Federal Register notice, the Federal. Register citation and date of publication.

1

ff:,3.[ -

33 y ,

),

g

+ .y.

L.

.0fficeof Administration The Rules ~and Procedures Branchi Office of Administration, will be~

responsible for. ensuring that a completed. index of the documents comprising the regulatory history has been compiled for each proposed and final rulemaking. The~ Rules and Procedures-Branch is also responsible for retaining.

the index and for disseminating copies of the index to interested NRC offices.

SlgaseWRias1.91725 William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations cc: Herzel H.E. Plaine, GC DISTRIBUTION

FXCameron i WJ0lmstead

-0 ELD R/F OELD S/F Regs R/F

' Central' File EDO R/Fi

. ED0 223' HDircks JRoe-TRehm VStello

, Regional Administrators.

RM s:

MBesaw i

,,, t '

FC- :0EL F a.. . : . ...)

0 ELD

.....: . ......:..../..j((,:....

ELD 0,-

EDO : : :

AME :/XCane :js tead :GHCunningham.WJD : : :::

4_..:.......__...:.............:............: ..........:..... ___...:_ ..........:...........

QTE :3//T/85 -:3/jT/85 :3/M785 . // /85 : : :

1 3

f ~

[o; 19868~ Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 78/Frid:y,- April 23,1999/Rults and Regulations j EFFECTIVE DATE:This final rule is the administrative procedures specifiedin COMMISSIONcourt challenging this effective rule. Howxvtr, on OctoberNUCLEAR 20,1999. REGOLATORY in 9 CFR 306.5 and 381.35 of the FMIA .

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

and PPIA regulatmns, respecdvely, must 10 CFR Part 55 Siegfried Guenthen, Office of Nuclear I be exhausted prior to any judicial Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear i ch llenge of tne application of the RIN 3150-AF62 . Regulatory Commission, Washington, provisions of this proposed rule,if the DC 20555-0001' telephone: 301-415-challenge involves any decision of an Initial Licensed Operator Examination Requirements 1056 e-mail:sxg@nre. gov, FSIS employee relating to inspection' ,,

services provided under the FMIA or AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory i

? PPIA. Background j Commission.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Pasi 391 ACTION: Final rule. Sauon 107 of the Atomic Energy Act i (AEA) of 1954, as amended, requires the

- Fees and charges, Government NRC to determine the qualifications of

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory l

emi oyees, Meat inspection. Poultry Commission (NRC)is amending its individuals applying for an operator's pr uts. . regulations 'o allow nuclear power license, to prescribe uniform conditions For the reasons set out in the for licensing these individuals, and to facility I censees to prepare, proctor, prennble, part 391 of title 9 of the Code and grade the required written issue licenses as appropriate. Pursuant i of Federal Regulations is amended as to the AEA,10 CFR Part 55 requires an examinations and to prepare the f Hows: required operating tests that the NRC . applicant for an operator license to pass - ;

PART 391 -FEES AND CHARGES FOR uses to evaluate the competence of an examination that satisfies the basic individuals applying for operator content requirements specified in the INSPECTION SERVICES AND LABOHATORY ACCREDITATION licenses at those plants. The amendment regulatwn. The licensing examination requires facility licensees that elect to consists of the following parts:(1) A

1. The authority citation for Part 391 prepare the examinations to prepare the written generic fundamentals continues to read as follows: examinations in accordance with NRC examination (covering reactor theory, operator licensing examination thermodynamics, and components) that Authority: 7 U.S.C.138f; 7 U.S.C. 394, 1622 and 1624 21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.; 21 standards for power reactors: establish, license applicants have to pass as a

- U.S.C. 601-095: 7 CFR 2.18 and 2.53. implement, and maintain procedures to prerequisite for taking the site-specific control examination security and examination;(2) a site-specific written

2. Sectm.as 391.2,391.3,391.4 and integrity submit, upon approval b an examination covering plant svstems, p's graph (a)in S 391.5 are revised t authorized representative of the f ility emergency and abnormal lant licensee, each examination and test to {mcodures, and plant and wi e(3) generic ;

$ 391.2 Base time rate, the NRC for review and approval; and wiedge and abilities; a site- .

proctor and grade the written specinc oprating test consisting of The base time rate for inspection three categones, including a crew-based, services provided pursuant to SS 350.7, examinations upon NRC approval. In 351.8,3519 352 5 354'101' 355.12* and making this final rule change, the NRC ynamic simu ator pwformance ns au nd ua 362.5 shali 1 e $37.00 por hour, per will continue to administer (i.e., manage (**,3 ]$at as ;g program employee. and oversee) the initial operator licensing examination process by: room and in-plant systems, and various

$ 391.3 Overtime and holiday rate. Developing the generic fundamentals plant administrative requirements.

Th3 ovmtime and holiday rate for examinations (which are also proctored Although neither the AEA nor Part 55 inspection services provided pursuant by facility licensees); reviewing and . specifies wh must prepare, proctor, or to SS 307.5,350.7,351.8. 351.9,352.5, grade these examinations, t,he NRC has approving the facility-developed, site-354.101,355.12,362.5 and 381.30 shall specific written examinations and traditmnally performed those tasks itself operating tests; and independently r through its contract examiners. The be $36.84 per hour, per program employee. conducting and grading both the NRC and its contract examiners have dynamic sirnulator and walk-through used the guidance in NUREG-1021,

$ 391.4 Laboratory services rate, portions of the operating test, which is "Opwator Licensing Examination The rate for laboratory services Standards for Power Reactors, once considered the most performance based provided pursuant to SS 350.7. 351.9. aspect of the licensing rocess and titled

Operator Licensing Examiner 352.5,354.101,355.12 and 362.5 shall permits the NRC to eva uate the Standards, to prepare the initial ,

ha $50.88 per hour, per program perator hcensmg examinations. This operator and senior operator a licants, ,

employee. s a competence under normal an[ahnormal h {[,nj,has e ee db '

$ 391.5 Lateorato y accreditation fees. a to en m n e

preparing the examinations. The current (t)The annual fee for the initial v rsion is designated Revision 8.4 the examinations and tests in lieu of in acc rdance with 10 CFR 170.12(1),

cccreditation and maintenance of licensees and to exercise its discretion tecreditation provided puranant i the NRC s staff and contractual costs are and reject a power reactor facility ;

SS 318.21 and 381.153 shall be $1,500 rec vered from facility licensees that licensee's determination to prepare, p:r cccreditation. . mcmve naminadon services. In Fiscal proctor, and grade the written examinations and prepare the operating Doniin Washington. DC on: April 20- tests. The Commission is concerned ""

1" for No'[nt$[. Put$1!cNufn mi '

with examination integrity: therefore, trDR) et zino 1. Strent NW, Washington. DC 2055%

l i

Thom a1. Billy, the amendment will also mvise the cooi; the PDR's mailing address is Mail Stop L.1 -

l Administrator, regulations to ensure that applicants, 8"d*P'*""i 202434-327adau 202434-ma.

{ (FR Doc. 99-10239 Filed 4-20-99; 3.49 pmI sumo cooe s4to-osou licensees, and facility licensees understand the scope of the regulation.

$Ni www.nre sov, m tenIe[ h[pN

\

e.mm

i4.

Federd Register /Vol. 64, No. 78/Fridiy, April 23,1999/ Rules and Regulations 19869 j 4.

Year (FY)1995,the NRC spent (e.g., pros, cons, and vulnerabilities) require facility licensees to alter their

approximately $3 million on contractor regarding the revised examination organizational structures. However, support for the preparation and process to facilitato a Commission based upon further review after issuing administration of the initial operator decision on whether to implement the the proposed rule, the NRC has

, licensing examinations and for support revised process on an industrywide concluded that there is insufficient basis l of requalification program inspections. basis. to support the original position.

On March 24,1995, in SECY-95-075, With Commission approval, the NRC Therefore, the NRC has decided to

" Proposed Changes to the NRC Operator staff resumed conducting pilot-style revise the final rule so power reactor Licensing Program," the staff advised examinations on August 19,1996, and facility licensees may elect to prepare the Commission ofits intent to by the end of June 1998 had reviewed, their written examinations and '

eliminate the use of contractors by approved, and administered 80 operating tests (and proctor and grade j allowing facility licensees to prepare ib additional examinations that were the written examinations) in accordance i examinations. The NRC staff's proposal developed by facility licensees. This with NUREG-1021, or to have the NRC ,

I was motivated by the general raised the total number of examinations prepare the examinations, thereby improvement in the performance level completed using the pilot process to making a backfit analysis unnecessary. I of power reactor facility licensees' 102. ,

training programs, the NRC's continuing On September 25,1996, the NRC staff Discussion efforts to streamline the functions of the forwarded the rulemaking plan and a The pilot examinations demonstrated i Federal government, and the need to response to the additional items to the that the revised process, under which ,

accommodate anticipated resource Commission in SECY-96-206, facility licensees prepare the written i reductions. "Rulemaking Plan for Amendments to examinations and operating tests, is l On April 18,1995, the Conunission 10 CFR part 55 to Gange Licensed generally effectivo and efficient. From ;

approved the NRC staff's proposal to Operator Examination Requirements." the time the pilot program began in initiate a transition process to revise she SECY-96-206 identified a number of October 1995 through the end of June j operator licensing program and directed areas (i.e., quality and consistency, 1998, the NRC staff reviewed, approved, the NRC staff to consider carefully the independence and public perception, and administered a total of 102 !

experienco from pilot examinations examination security, NRC resources, examinations that were voluntarily j before fully implementin'g the changes, program stability, and examiner developed by facility licensees under On August 15,1995, the NRC issued proficiency) in which the NRC could be the pilot examination and transition Generic Letter (GLI 95-06, " Changes in more vulomble under the revised program.

the Operator Licensing Program."i examination process and described the Facility licensees prepared the written outlining the revised examination measures that the NRC has taken to examinations and the operating tests, manage the vulnerahilities. On proctored the written examinations, and ;

development process and soliciting volunteers to participate in pilot December 17,1996, the Commission graded the written examinations using !

examinations to evaluate and refine the directed the staff to proceed with the the guidance provided by the NRC in GL methodology, proposed rulemaking. The NRC staff 95-06 during the early stages of the Between Qctober 1,1995, and April 5, forwarded the proposed rule (SECY pilot program, and subsequently in 1996, the NRC reviewed and approved 079, " Proposed Rule--Initial Licensed interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, 22 operator licensing examinations, Operator Examination Requirements") " Operator Licensing Examination including both the written examinations to the Commission on April 8,1997, and Standards for Power Reactors." NRC 1 and the operating tests, prepared by on June 26,1997, the Commission examiners thoroughly reviewed the i facility licensees as part of a pilot approved publication of the proposed examinations and tests to determine if i program. These examinations were rule for a 75-day comment period. The they were consistent with NRC prepared using the guidance in Revision proposed rule was pablished in the standards, directed facility licensees to 7 (Supplement 1) of NUREG-10212 and Federal Register (62 FP 42420) on make wha'tever changes were necessary the additional guidance in GL 95-06. August 7,1997. After the public to achieve NRC standards if the The results of the pilot examinations comment period expired on October 21, submitted examinations and tests were were discussed in SECY-96-123, 1997,11 comment letters were received. deficient, and approved the !

" Proposed Changes to the NRC Operator Two additional comment letters arrived examinations and tests before they were i Licensing Program," dated June 10, after the expiration date but were also administered. NRC examiners 1996. Based on the results of the pilot considered in the development of the independently administered all of the program, the NRC staff recommended final rule. operating tests, reviewed the written that the Commission approve the As written, the proposed rule would examination grading, and made the final !

implementation of the new examination have required all power reactor facility licensing recommendations for approval process on a voluntary basis until licensees to prepare their operator by NRC management. J Comments from the NRC chief rulemaking could be completed to licensing examinations and to proctor require all power reacto. acility and grade the written portion of those examiners who evaluated the pilot licensees to prepare the entire initial examinations. Although the proposed examinations indicate that the quality operator licensing examination and to rule would have imposed new and level of difficulty of the licensee-proctor and grade the written portion of requirements on facility licensees, the prepared examinations (when modified the examination. On July 23,1996, the NRC took the position that the backfit as directed by the NRC) were generally J Commission authorized the staff to rule,10 CFR 50.109, did not apply comparable to the examinations 4 continue the pilot examination process because the shift in responsibility for prepared by the NRC (i.e., by the staff on a voluntary basis and directed the preparing the examinations would not: or NRC contractors). The passing rate on 7-j staff to develop a rulemaking plan to (1) Constitute a " modification of the the 102 pilot-style examinations L justify the changes that would be procedures required to operate a administered throuf ';e end of June necessary to 10 CFR Part 55. The facility" within the scope of the backfit w9a was only slightly lower *han the Commission also directed the staff to rule;(2) affect the basic procedures for passing ate on the power reactc r address a number of additionalitems qualifying licensed operators; or (3) licensing examinations administered L. ._

m i i

I

19870 Federal' Register /Vol. 64, No. 78/Fridry. April 23,1999/Rula and Regulations l l

- during FY 1995, th3 last year in which reports, as appropriate: (5) conduct or eliminate the use of contractors in the all examinations were prepared by the participate in workshops, as necessary, operator licensing program and conduct NRC, liowever, considering the to ensure that facility licensees the initial operator licensing and hl:torical fluctuation in the average understand the NRC's examination requalification inspection programs examination passing rates and the other criteria: and (6) prepare the licensing with the existing NRC staff. Before factors (e.g., training program quality examinations for those facility licensees initiating the pilot examination and end screening of applicants by facility that elect not to prepare their own- transition process at the beginning of FY

. licensees) that could be responsible for examinations. . 1996, the NRC spent approximately $3 some or all of the observed difference, With regard to the efficiency of the million per year on contractor assistance the Commission has concluded that the revised examination process, the for initial examinations and ob;orved change in the passing rates is experience to date supports the requalification inspections. In FY 1997, not significant. The average grades on conclusion that the average industry when facility licensees prepared thz facility-prepared, NRC-approved cost will not differ significantly from the approximately 75 percent of the written examinations were also cost of NRC-prepared examinations- examinations, the NRC's spending on compaiable if slightly lower than the Comments from the industry reflect that contractor assistance for the licensing gr des on examinations prepared by the the cost for some facility licensees to examiaations and requalification NRC during FY 1995. These data . prepare the examination was higher inspections decreased to approximately support the conclusion that the facility. than it would have been for an NRC- 50.5 million. The FY 1998 and FY 1999 prepared examinations are prepared examination: however, other budgets reflect the complete elimination discriminating at a conservative and hcensees prepared good quality of contractor support for the operator teceptable level and that the revised examinations at lower cost tnan the licensing program (with the exception of txamination process is effective, NRC. The industry generally attributed the generic fundamentals examination).

Thrrefore, the fact that some facility the higher cost to the revised Future resource requirements for the lic:nsees will be preparing the examination and administrative criteria operator licensing program will,in large examinations with NRC review and . under the pilot examination process- part, be driven by changes in the level cpproval, should have no negative effect Although the NRC acknowledges that of facility participation in the voluntary on the safe operation of the plants. the revised critena contribute somewhat examination deyelopment process.

t the elevated cost, many of the Although the NRC-approved in order to maintain the integrity of variables that affect the uality and, ex minations were comparable to NRC. c nsequently, the cost c the the operator licensing written prepared examinations, essentially all of examination will be under the facility naminations required by 10 CFR 55,41 the examinations repared by facility ntrol and can present an and 55.43 and the operating tests licensees require [some changes U""'.'c required by to CFR 55.45, the P Y subsequent to NRC review, and many of ,x,E , f,c j yy;"censees t at e lect to Commission has amended the final rule the examinations required significant prepare the examinations will be able to by. adding a requirement for those power rework. The NRC had originall manage the size and quality of their mactor facility licensees that 31oct to believed that, with training am examination banks and the training and Prepare, proctor, and grade il e written experience, the industry would quickly experience of the personnel they select exammations and prepare tbs operating gain proficiency m preparing the to write their licensing examinations. tests, to estabbsh, implemen i and b

extrainations, bat the overall quality of The revised examination process allows maintain procedures that can'rol the the examinations submitted to the NRC facility licensees to control the security and integnty of those during the pilot program did not development of the examinations and examinations and tests. The improve as expected over time, holds them responsible for their quality. Commission's regulations in 10 CFR

'Although approximately half of the 17 If a facility licensee submits an 55.49 already prohibit opplicants, facility licensees that had prepared acceptable quality examination, it is licensees (oper,ators), a nd facility more than one examination by the end likely to save resources despite the licensees from engaging in any activity of FY 1997 did maintain or improve the additional administrative criteria: that compromises the integrity of any quility of their second or third however,if the facility licensee submits examination or test required by 10 CFR ex .mination submittals, the quality of an examiaation that requires many 55. !!owever, based on the number of the other facility licensees'second or changes, it will likely cost more than if examination security incidents that third examinations was lower. the NRC had prepared the examination. have occurred since the pilot Consequently, the NRC has asked the Comments from the NRC chief examination program began, the industry to address the issue of examiners who worked on the pilot Commission has ccmcluded that ex:mination quality and determine the examinations indicate that the average applicants. -licensees, and facility need for additional training on amount of time spent reviewing and licensees may not be aware that the txamination development. The NRC revising the facility-prepared requirements of 10 CFR 55.49 cover will continue to: (1) Direct facility examinations was generally consistent more than just those activities directly lic:nsees that prepare their ' with the estimates developed before involving the physical administration of ex:minations to revise the examinations starting the pilot program. Although a an examination or test. In that regard, as necessary to achieve an acceptable number (approximately 20 percent in the Commission considers the integrity 1:vsl of quality and discrimination: (2) FY 1997) of the examinations required of an examination or test to be withhold approval of those - significantly more NRC effort than compromised if any activity occurs that examinations that do not meet NRC originally anticipated to bring them up could affect the equitable and consistent standards:(3) oversee the regional to the NRC's standards, the resource hdministration of the examination or implementation of the operator ' burden was generally offset by other test, regardless of whether the activity lic;nsing process to ensure consistency: examinations that required less effort to takes place before, during, or after the (4) cddress significant deficiencies in review and revise. The increased administration of the examination or the rubmitted examinations as licensee efficiency of the revised examination test. Therefore, in eddition to requiring performance issues in the examination process has enabled the NRC to certain facility licensees to establish,

" ' ~ -

m -

r Fed:r21 Regist:r/Vol. 64, No. 78/ Friday, April 23,1999/ Rules and Regulations 19871

' implement, and maintain procedures the NRC staff can make a determination facility licensee or the NRC. The that contml the security and integrity of regarding the validity of the Commission also realizes that the the examinations and tests, the - examination. If the compromise is not frequency of examination security Commission is also amending to CFR discovered until after the licensing incidents and the risk of undetected 55.49 to clarify the scope of that action is complete, the NRC will compromises may increase for those regulation. reevaluate the licensing decision. If the examinations that are prepared by Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 identifies NRC determines that the original facility licensees. liowever, the a number of examination security and . licensing decision was based on an Commission is confident that the integrity guidelines (e.g., physical invalid examination,it will take measures discussed above will security precautions, including the use appropriate action pursuant to 10 CFR sufficiently control the vulnerability in of simulators and the mailing of 55.61(b)(2). this area.

- examination materials) that the affected As a separate action, the Commission The Commission is aware that the facility licensees (i.e., those that elect to is modifying its " General Statement of original expectation that facility prapare their own written examinations Policy and Procedures for NRC licensees would eventually realize cost and operating tests) should consider Enforcement Actions"(Enforcement i

savings under the revis3d process as j when establishing their procedures. Policy) to provide examples of they gain proticiency in preparing the i Although the security and integrity violations that nay be used as guidance examinations has not yet been realized. I guidelines in NUREG-1021 are not in determining the appropriate severity However, the Commission has (

regulatory requirements, once a facility level for violations involving the concluded that neither the increased J licensee has established its requ! red compromise of an examination or test. vulnerabilities nor the absence of clear procedures, the Commission intends to The NRC staff will evaluate all potential industry cost benefit provides sufficient monitor this area to ensure that the compromises of an examination or test basis for discontinuing the revised procedures are implemented and mquired by to CFR 55 to determine examination process. The Commission maintahred. whether a violation of10 CFR 55.49 has also finds that the revised examination Consistent with the examination occurred. A compromise that is not process is more consistent with the security and integrity guidelines in detected before a license is issued NRC's other oversight programs because NUREG-1021, facility employees with would be considernd a significant it requires NRC examiners to review specific knowledge of ariy NRC regulatory concern and categorized at materials prepared by facility licensees.

examination before it is given should least at Severity Level 111. However, The revised process enables NRC not communicate the examination depending on the circumstances as examiners to focus more on the contents to unauthorized individuals explained in the Enforcement Policy, psychometric quality of exarainations and should not participate in any the severity level may be increased or (e.g., the cognitive level at which the I further instruction of the students decreased. The NRC intends to utilizo questions are written and the l scheduled to take the examination. its enforcement authority including, as plausibility of the distractors or wrong Before they are given access to the warranted, civil penalties and orders answer choices) prepared by the facility examination, facility employees are against individuale and facility licenroes than on the technical accuracy expected to sign a statement licensees who: (1) C"mprornise the of th'e examinations, which was their acknowledging their understanding of integrity of an examination in violation primary focus when the examinations the restrictions. When the examinations of to CFR 55.49;(2)(ommit deliberate !

were prepared by NRC contractors. This are complete, the same employees are misconduct in violation of to CFR 50.5: shift in the NRC examiners' focus, expected to sign a post examination or (3) provide incomplete or inaccurate coupled with the facility licensees' statement certifying that they have not information to the NRC in violation of technical expertise, has the potential to knowingly compromised the 10 CFR 50.9. In addition, cases improve the overall quality of the examination. involving willful violations may be facility-prepared licensing NRC examiners are expected to be referred to the Department of Justice for examinations.

attentive to the facility licensen's criminal prosecution. In the proposed rule, the NRC took examination security measures. to The Commission has reviewed the the position that the backfit rule (10 review the security expectations with vulnerabilities and costs associated with CFR 50.109) did not apply to this the facility licensee at the time the the revised examination process and rulemaking. However in its review of examination arrangements are considered the measures that the NRC the final rule, the Committee To Review confirmed, and to report any security staff has taken to mitigate the Generic Requirements (CRGR) opined concerns to NRC management. If the vulnerabilities. With regard to that it was inclined to view the rule as NRC determines during ita preparation examination quality and level of a backfit and recommended that the that an examination may have been difficulty, the Commission provisions of the proposed rule be compromised, it will not administer the acknowledges that the effectiveness of implemented on a voluntary basis, examination until the scope of the the revised examination process is which would not constitute a backfit, potential compromise is determined and contingent on the NRC staff's review of Although the NRC had considered and measures can be taken to address the the facility proposed examinations to dismissed that alternative during the integrity and validity of the ensure that NRC standards are achieved. proposed rulemaking because of examination. Pursuant to 10 CFR 55.51. The Commission has concluded, based concerns regarding resource planning, it i the NRC must make a determination on the results of the pilot examination has since concluded that the benefits of l before issuing a license that the test or program, that the controls implemented the revised examination process (e.g.,

i examination is valid, meeting the by the NRC staff will provide reasonable improved regulatory efficiency and requirements of the AEA and the assurance that the examinations that are greater hcensoo control over the Commission's regulations. If the administered to the license applicants examination costs) remain substantial compromise is discovered after the will pmvide a valid and consistent basis even if every facility licensee is not examination has been administered, the

upon which to make the licensing required to prepare its own NRC will not complete the licensing decisions regardless of whether the examinations. Rather than terminate the action for the affected applicants until examinations were prepared by the pilot program and resume the NRC-l l

F u

1 1

- 1 19872- Federal Register /Vol. 64, No.' 78/Frid:y, April 23,1999/ Rules and Regulttions l pr: pared examination process on an NRC contractors wrote most of the than to have the NRC prepare them

- industrywide basis, the NRC has examinations. under the same criteria.

decided to amend the final rule to give Those comments related to the two NEI also stated that the relative cost

. ' tcility licensees the option to prepare specific questions raised in the of the two examination processes their own examinations or to have them proposed rule and those that have a should not be the only factor in prepared by the NRC. direct bearing on the rule are discussed deciding whether to proceed with the below. The comments are categorized as rulemaking that would have required all Summary of Public Comments power reactor facility licensees to they relate to reactor safety and the ,

The 75-day public comment period vulnerabilities discussed !n SECY prepare their licensing examinations. l began when the notice af proposed 206 (i.e., qual.ity and consistency, NElindicated that preparing higher rulemaking was published in the independence and public perception, cognitive level questions requires I l'ederal Register (62 FR 42426) on security, NRC resources, and examiner detailed plant knowledge, better August 7,1997, and closed on October proficiency). The NRC received no Provided by facility licensees, and that i 21,1997. The notice (FRN) roquested comments related to program stability. the revised process (which has j public comment on the proposed rule, One NRC examiner, NEl, four of the eliminated the use of NRC contractors to i on the implementation guidance in . utilities, and the utility employee also administer the operating tests) will !

interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, and provided specific comments and allow NRC staff to evaluate each ;

on the following two questions: recommendations regarding the a plicant without relying on third party {

1. Are there portions of the operator 0 8 " f8-implementation guidance in interim Two NRC examiners, one contract i

exams that are common to all licensees, Revision 8 of NUREG-1021. Those ,

and would, therefore, be more comments are addressed in Attachment examiner, and a utility employee ;

asserted that the facility bcensees' cost efficiently developed by the NRCi 1 of the Commission (SECY) paper

2. Is the conclusion in the regulatory associated with this rulemaking. A copy has increased under the revised examinati n Process.They cited various analysis correct that it would be less of the SECY is available in the NRC costly for each licensee to prepare its Public Document Room, on the internet '"".8 .ns f r the increased cost, including traimng personnel to write the own initial operator examinations to be at http://www.nrc. gov, or from Siegfried examinations and then restricting them reviewed, revised, and administered by Guenther, Office of Nuclear Reactor fmn traimng 6e applicants, and ;

. the NRC, than to have one NRC Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at 301- 415-1056 or e-mail upgrading equipment to maintain contractor prepare these exams for all licensed operators with the costs to be at sxg@nrc. gov, nam l nation security. The NRC Cornment: With regard to the first

"" " s based their comments on reimbursed by licensee fees? d c h","rso m(el o e ex The NRC received 13 comment letters specific question included in the , n r indicated that on the proposed rule; two of the letters proposed rulemakmg. 2 of the 13 t took facility licensees an average of arrived after the comment period closed, respondents (NEl and one utility) stated 700 hours0.0081 days 0.194 hours 0.00116 weeks 2.6635e-4 months to prepare each examination.

but they were considered nonetheless. that all of the common material is The utility employee stated that the rule The respondents included three NRC already included in tne generic change will simply transfer the cost of examiners, one contract examiner, five hmdamentals examination (GFEl and contractors from the NRC to the utilities.

nuclear utilities and one utility that the remaining elements are best Response:The NRC acknowledges employee, one nonpower reactor facility covered as part of the site-specific that the revised administrative criteria licensee, the State of Illinois, and the examination, in particular (e.g.. the restrictions on Nuclear Energy Institute (NEll, which Response:lt appears that the current which facility training personnel would submitted its comments on behalf of the allocation of topics between the GFE be allowed to write the pilot nuclear power industry. Copies of the and site-specific written examinations is examinations imd the need to document public comments are available in the generally perceived to be an efficient the source of the test items) have NRC Public Document Room,2120 L method of covering the topics required probably caused the cost of preparing Street, NW (Lower Level). Washington, by 10 CFR 55.41 and 55.43. Therefore. the examinations to be somewhat higher DC, and on the internet at "http:// the Conunission finds no basis for than it would have been if facility ruleforum.llnl. gov /cgi-bin / changing the process to have the NRC licensees had been allowed to prepare rulemake? source =OE_PRULE". separately develop portions of the initial the examinations using the same criteria Seven of the respondents (three NRC examination that would be common to that applied to the NRC and its examiners, one contract examiner, one all facilities. contractors before starting the pilot utility employee, one nonpower facility Comment: Seven of the 13 program. However, when the NRC first licensee, and the State of Illinois) respondents (NEl, two utilities, a utility developed the revised examination recommended that the rule change be employee. and three examiners) directly process, with its additional disapproved. Five of the industry or indirectly addressed the second administrative criteria, the NRC still respondents (NEl and four utilities) specific question in their letters. NEl believed that the cost for facility supported the rule change; however, and one utility stated that the revised licensees to prepare the examinations one utility endorsed NEl's comments examination criteria in interim Revision would be offset by the reduction in the but stateu that it did not agree with the a of NUREG-1021 have increased the licensing fees and that a cost savings proposed rule in its present form. NEl level of effort and will result in higher could be realized as facility licensees and two of the utilities stated that they licensing fees regardless of who gained experience with the process.

would rather continue with a voluntary prepares the examinations. Ilowever, Many of the facility licensees that

' program because it would allow greater NEI and another utility agreed that participated in the pilot program flexibility for those facility licensees comparing the cost of facility-prepared demonstrated that it is possible to with small training staffs. However, they examinations to those prepared by the prepare an acceptable quality would support mandatory participation NRC is difficult, but they concluded that examination at the same or lower cost with the rule change rather than return it should be less costly for facility than the NRC or its contractors could to the previous process under which licensees to prepare the examinations prepare a comparable examination. The

Fed:rcl Regi^t:r/Vol. 64, No. 78/ Friday, April 23,1999/ Rules and Regulations 19873 fact that a number of facility licensees prepare the licensing examinations quality of the examinations has not did not prepare acceptable examinations (including the written and operating test improved during the pilot program and may be as much an indication of the outlines, the written examination is not likely to improve because there is licensees' inefficiency and inexperience questions, and the operating test details) nothing to prevent licensees from using as it is a symptom of deficiencies in the without regard to the amount of time different people to develop successive examination criteria. Those facility they spent training the license examinations. A utility employee licensees that did not initially submit applicants, liowever, the instructors asserted that the utilities' limited acceptable examinations, eventually will still be precluded from instructing contact with the process by preparing an paid more in fees because of the the applicants once they begin working examination once every 18 to 24 months additional effort required for the NRC to on the licensing examination. This will not foster consistency or develop rnview, and the licensees' staffs to change is consistent with NRC policy skilled examination writers.

rewrite, the examinations. Finally, it is regarding instructor participation in Two NRC examiners asserted that the possible that the magnitude of the requalification examinations and should elimination of NRC contract examiners increase in effort and cost may be provide licensees that elect to prepare who participated in examinations across perceived to be higher than it actually their examinations with increased the four NRC regions will be detrimental is becauss the industry had originaDy flexibility in managing their resources to examination consistency. One NRC expected to save money if the NRC and possibly reduce their costs. examiner asserted that the guidance in )

would have allowed facility licensees to The NRC has revised the regulatory interim Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 is i prepare the examinations using the analysis in response to the public not sufficiently prescriptive to ensure !

version of NUREG-1021 that was in comments and lessons learned from the nationwide consistency in the level of effect before beginning the pilot pilot program. The NRC has also knowledge tested and the level of program. reevaluated the additional difficulty of the examinations and that With regard to the additional security administrative critoria in interim several specific changes should be costs cited by the examiners, the Revision a of NUREG-1021 and included in NUREG-1021 to address his Commission has stressed the considers them reasonable and essential concerns.

importance of maintaining examination to mitigate the vulnerabilities (e.g., The State of Illinois asserted that the security, but the NRC has not required quality, security, and conflict of quality and consistency of the written facility licensees to invest in additional interest) of the new examination pmcess examination questions can be physical security systems. Ilowever, the and to facilitate the NRC staff's review maintained because the NRC can change frequency of security incidents since of the proposed examinations. These and approve the questions before they beginning the pilot examination criteria are retained in the final version are used. However, the State also program has prompted the NRC to: (1) of Revision a of NUREG--1021, recommended that the NRC should clarify the intent of to CFR 55.49 in the The issue of cost has lost much of its compile the examination questions and final rule:(2) amend the final importance because the NRC has proctor the examinations (refer to the examination rule to require facility decided to continue the revised conflict-of-interest discussion below).

licensees that elect to prepare their examination process on a voluntary According to NEl, the recent facility-examinations to establish, implement, basis rather than require each power prepared examinations were of higher and maintain procedures to control reactor facility licensee to prepare the quality than the examinations prepared examination security and integrity; and examinations. It will be up to each by the NRC before the pilot program (3) include additional security guidance facility licensee to compare the cost of started. Many of the NRC-prepared in the final version of Revision 8 of preparing its own examinations in examinations had to be revised in NUREG-1021. These actions will help accordance with the criteria in the response to the facility licensees' ensure, among other things, that facility effective revision of NUREG-1021 with technical reviews.

licensees understand their the cost of having the NRC staff prepare Re8Ponse: Essentially all of the responsibility for maintaining control the examinations and then make a facility-piepared examinations required over the examination process, decision based on its available resources some changes and many required The pilot examinations demonstrated (and other considerations). significant changes to make them that some of the people assigned by Comment: Two NRC examiners with conform to the NRC's standards for facility licensees to develop the pilot-examination experience asserted quality and level of difficulty, examinations did not have sufficient that the quality of the simulator and According to the questionnaires expertise required to prepare good walk-through tests has decreased completed by the NRC chief examiners quality examination materials consistent significantly and that, in most cases, the responsible for the pilot examinations.

with NRC standards. As noted earlier, quality and difficulty of the submitted the average facility-prepared written the NRC has asked the industry to examinations have been below NRC examination required approximately 10 address the issue of examination quality standards. All four examiners who to 20 changes, which is consistent with and the need for additional training on submitted comments cited various the number of changes often required on examination development. The NRC reasons why the quality and difficulty of examinations prepared by NRC contract acknowledges that the restrictions on the facility prepared examinations examiners. Most NRC chief examiners the use of instructors to prepare the might be lower than examinations judged the final examinations (with the licensing examinations may be partially prepared by the NRC or its contract NRC's changes incorporated) to be responsible for limiting the availability examiners, including: (1) the facility comparable to recent NRC-prepared of qualified examination preparers, licensees' tendency to narrow the scope examinations in terms of quality and Moreover, the NRC has concluded that of the operating test to those procedures level of difficulty. Moreover, the fact the restrictions have placed an that the facility believes are important that the passing rate on the facility-unnecessary burden on facility licensees (and emphasized in the training prepared examinations is generally with minimal benefit and, therefore, has program): and (2) the belief that most consistent with the historical passing revised the personnel restrictions in the facility training personnel do not have rate on examinations prepared by the final version of Revision a of NUREG- the expertise to develop valid test items. NRC suggests that the NRC-approved 1021 to allow facility instructors to Two NRC examiners asserted that the cxaminations have discriminated at an

F 19874 Federal Register /Vol. 64 No. 78/Frid:y, April 23,1999/Rul:s cnd Regul tions

'* ccc:ptablelevel and that they have what was taught, or to avoid testing in div:lopment programs end implemint provided an adequate basis for licensing areas with known difficulties. One NRC additional restrictions, as necessary, if the rpplicants at those facilities. -

examiner noted that the new process actual bias problems are identified.

- Although the NRC expected that the places training managers in a no-win Moreover, if the NRC determines that a proposed examination quality would lsituation because if applicants fall the facility licensee has intentionally biased improve as facility licensees gained exandnation, the managers look like the scope, content, or level of difficulty cxperiance and familiarity with the poor trainers, and if the examination is of an examination (i.e., compromised its

' NRC's requirements and expectations, too easy, the NRC gives them a bad integrity contrary to 10 CFR 55.49) to tha overall quality of examinations report, lie and another NRC examiner enhance the chances that its applicants submitted to the NRC during the asserted, based on their experience would pass the examination, the NRC transition proce;s did not improve . during the pilot examinations, that some will utilize its enforcement authority appreciably over time. Although facility personnel openly admitted that including, as warranted, civil penalties, approximately half of the 17 facility they would develop the easiest possible orders against the individuals involved, licensees that had prepared more than examination to ensure that all their and charging the individuals involved i ons examination by the end of FY 1997 applicants would pass. with deliberate misconduct pursuant to j did maintain or improve the quality of One NRC examiner noted that the 10 CFR 50.5.

NRC review and approval process Concerns regarding the potential for tlnir second or tidrd examination conflict of interest and the frequency of submittals,the quality of the other cannot adequately compensate for the f:cility licensees

second or third conflict-of-interest problems inherent in security incidents since beginning the exnninations was lower. Although it is the revised examination process and pilot examination program have unclear to what extent the problems recommended a change to interim prompted the NRC to review the clarity of 10 CFR 55.451.The regulation

with proposed examination quality and Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 that would i difficulty have been caused by a lack of limit the licensees' latitude in selecting encompasses not only activitier like sufficient expertise on the part of the topics for the examination outline. The cheating and lapses in security but also ex mination writers,the NRC has asked State of Illinois suggested that the NRC activities that compromise the integrity the industry to address tids issue. should compile the questions and or validity of the examination itself (e.g.,

Furthermore, the NRC staff has proctor the examination to maintain noncompliance with the criteria conducted and participated in a number more of the checks and balances that designed to limit the potential for bias in the selection of topics to be evaluated of public meetings and workshops in an existed under the old process.

effort to communicate its expectations Th9 nonpower reactor facility licensen on the written examination). Therefore, to the facility employees who will be noted that most professional licensing the NRC has concluded that it would be preparing the examinations. Additional examinations are developed by beneficial to amend to CFR 55.49 to NRC and industry workshops will be independent agencies, and that this clarify its intent and to amend the conducted to address examination fosters a sense of professionalism in the examination rule to require power l

. quality and solicit industry feedback. license applicants. reactor facility licensees that elect to i I

in S'ECY-96-206, the NRC staff Response:The NRC agrees that the prepare their licensing examinations to discussed the issues of examination revised examination process decreases establish procedures to centrol the level ofindependence in the examination security and integrity, quality and consistency and how they might be affected when a large number licensing pmcess and may create a Comment: Three NRC examiners and potential conflict of interest for facility the State of Illinois asserted that the j of facility employees assume the role th;t had been filled by a smaller number personnelinvolved in preparing the revised examination process increases l examination. However, the Commission the threat to examination security. One !

cf experienced NRC and contract exuniners. The NRC staff's has concluded that restricting the examiner noted that the examination is i training activities of those individuals onsite for a longer period of time, ,

comprehensive examination reviews I when they become involved in thereby proportionally increasing the versus the examination criteria in NUREG-1021,in combination with preparing the licensing examination, in risk of being compromised. Another supervisory reviews and the combination with the NRC's examiner cited the fact that a number of examination oversight activities enforcement authority, will adequately examination reports have documented conducted by the Office of Nuclear mitigate the vulnerability in this area. problems with security.

Reactor Regulation, should mitigate the Although the NRC has amended the Response: As discussed in SECY 206 and SECY-97-079, the Commission vulnerability in this area. Moreover, the final version of Revision 8 of NUREG- is aware of the vulnerability in this area industry and staff initiatives to improve 1021 to allow instructors to participate because several security incidents have the expertise of the examination writers in the examination development regardless of their involvement in occurred since beginning the pilot should eventually enhance the quality examination program. Therefore, based and consistency of the facility-prepared training the license applicants (as naminations, discussed above in response to on the comments roceived and the comments concerning the industry experience with security incidents, the Comment: All four examiners who submitted comments, a nonpower busden under the revised examination NRC has:(1) clarified to CFR 55.49 in the final rule to ensure that applicants, reactor facility licensee, and the State of process), the NRC has also amended Illinois asserted that allowing the NUREG-1021 to include en expectation licensees, and facility licensees understand the scope and intent of the ficility licensees to prepare the operator that facility licensees will use un licensing examinations decreases the objective, systematic process for regulation;(2) amended the final examination rule to require facility level of independence and creates a preparing the written examination conflict of interest for facility personnel outlines. This pr,xess enhancement licensees that elect to prepare their having responsibility for training and should limit the potential for bias in the licensing examinations to establish, licensing the operators. Their letters selection of topics to be evaluated on implement, and maintain procedures to control examination security and maintained that the new process makes the written examination.

it possible for the utilities to " teach the The NRC will continue to monitor the integrity;(3) strengthened the discussion of examination security in cxamination,'? to test applicants only on facility licensees' examination Jane L

Fed:rcl Regist:r/Vol. 64", No. 78 / Friday, April 23,1999/ Rules and Regulations 19875

,I.

th> final version of Revision 8 of Response:The NRC acknowledges maintain an acceptable level of NUREG-1021: and (4) modified that many of the facility-prepared proficiency. An NRC examiner will NUREG-1600, " General Statement of examinations (about 20 percent in FY review and approve every facility-Policy and Procedures for NRC 1997) required significantly more NRC prepared examination before it is Enforcement Actions," to uddress examiner time than desired or planned administered to ensure that it conforms enforcement action against parties in order to achieve NRC quality to the criteria specified in NUREG-1021 subject to the requirements in 10 CFR standards. Hmvever, questionnaires for content, format, quality, and level of 55.49. NRC examiners are expected to filled out by NRC chief examiners for knowledge and difficulty. NRC review the NRC's physical security the pilot examinations indicate that the examiners will also continue to guidelines and the facility licensee's average amount of time spent on independently administer and grade specific plans for ensuring examination reviewing and upgrading the both the dynamic simulator and the security at the time the examination examinations is generally consistent plant walk-through portions of the arrangements are confirmed with the with the estimates developed before operating tests. Because NRC examiners designated facility contact. Furthermore, starting the pilot program (i.e.. will be administering all of the the NRC has issued an Information approximately 170 examiner-hours). As operating tests. the Commission believes Notice to advise power reactor facility noted in SECW97-079. the NRC hn that the revised process will enable the licensees of the NRC's perspective and issued a memorandum to its regioual examiners to accrue more experience in expectations regarding the integrity of administrators emphasizing the a shorter period of time and to maintain examinations developed by the facility importance of:(1) Assigning adequate their proficiency. New NRC license licensees' employees and resources to carry out the operator examiners will still be required to representatives, and it has asked NEI to licensing task: (2) completing a review complete a standardized training take the initiative in developing a model of every facility-prepared examination: program, including the development of for securing examinations, and (3) not administering any a written examination and operating As a separate action the NRC will not examination that fails to meet NRC test, as part of their quahfication administer any examination that may standards for quality and level of process. Moreover, the NRC will ensure have been compromised until the scope difficulty. Furthermore, all the time that that the in house capability to 3repare of the potential compromise is NRC examiners spend reviewing an the examinations is maintaine by: (1) determined and measures can be taken cumination and modifying it so that it to address the integrity and validity of Requiring a regional supervisor to meets NRC standards is ultimately review and approve everv examination the examination. If the compromise is hilled to the facility licensee.

discovered after the examination has and the Office of Nuclear Reactor The Commissiori acknowledges that Regulation to conduct periodic been administered, the NRC will not facility licensees bear the cost of complete tho licensing action for the examination reviews (2) conducting preparing the licensing examinations affected applicants until the staff can examiner refresher training; and (3) whether or not the NRC performs this make a determination regarding the convening an operator licensing function. Ilowever, this rule will give examiners' training conference at impact that the compromise has had on facility licensees more control over th" the examination process. If the ntervals not to exceed 24 months.

cost oflicensing operators at their Although ex erience during the compromise is not discovered until after facility, and the pilot examinatmn voluntary pi ot nrogram and informal the 1,icensmg action is complete, the program has demonstrated that some NRC will reevaluate the licensing facility licensees will save resources if feedMirom de industry suggests that decision pursuant to 10 CFR 55 61(b)(2) they elect to prepare their own licensing facility I censees are likely to request ifit determmes that the origmal examinations. the NRC to prepare a sufficient number licensing decision was based on an The NRC s budget cuts have of examinations to maintain the mvalid examination. , necessitated agencywide downsizing.

7g g g mg g g, Comment:One NRC examm, er which can be expected to increase the Mll W duimd m miw M Icw om disagreed with the conclusion in the burden of travel for many NRC 1 f& limm mision proposed rulemaking that the facility- emplovees, not just the operator per calendar year.

prepared examination process is an licensing examiners. The number of Comment: A utility emp,.oyee asserted efficient use of NRC resources when NRC full-time equivalent (FTE) license that the revised examination process compared to the NRC-prepared or euminers has remained essentially ~

will not enhance the competency of the contractor prepared exainmations. He constant throughout the pilot program operators or reactor safety because the noted that, in most cases, the quality and. aside from normal attrition and facilities' training resources will be and difficulty of the proposed staff turnover, the loss of certified diverted from their primary purpose examinations have been below NRC examiners has been limited to NRC (i.e.. training the applicants) as much as standards (as discussed above) and that contractors. six months before the examination date.

it has taken a significant effort on the Comment: Two NRC examiners Three NRC examiners also took issue part of the NRC chief examiner to expressed concern that examiner with the conclusion in the proposed achieve an acceptable product. proficiency will deciease as a result of rulemaking that the NRC staff's focus on An NRC contract examiner asserted implementing the revised examination operator performance and its core of that NRC cost-saving is a poor reason fr- process. One of the examiners stated experience will improve under the pilot changing the rule, since the utdities pay that examination reviewers will not examination process because for the examinations anyway. lie noted maintain the same base of knowledge as contractors will no longer be used to that the pilot examination p'rocess has examination writers maintained and administer the operating tests. Two of led to a loss of certified examiners and that they will lose their famiharity with the examiners asserted that the contenda that those NRC examiners who plant operating procedures. reduction in the amount of procedural are left will become more dissatisfied Hesponse: The Conunission has rewatch by examiners will result in the with their jobs and will leave because concluded that the revi3ed examination identification and corriottion of fewer they will be required to travel more to process effords sufficient NRC staff procedural problems. Two of the compensate for the loss of contractors. involvement that NRC examiners will cuminers also stated that the contract i

l 19876' Federal Register /Vol 64, No. 78/ Friday, April 23,19@/Rul:s und Regulations j examiners help maintain examination be fewer under the revised method, NRC mailed to each facility licensee;in co:sistency across the NRC regions and i examiners will still be expected to accordance with NRC practice, revisions that their contribution to the operator review and identify discrepancies in the of NUREG-1021 are announced in the lic nsing program goes beyond simple procedures that will be exercised during Federal Register when they are issued task completion. . the walk-through portion of the and become effective six months after Response:The Commission expects operating test and during the simulator the date of issuance. Copies may be th t those training departments that scenarios. Inspected and/or copied for a fee at the l cannot readily and safely absorb the NRC's Public Document Room,2120 L Other Comments Street NW (Lower Level), Washington, examination development work will use th2 funds that they were previously Since beginning the pilot examination DC. Final Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 is paying to the NRC through the fee program, the NRC has sought to obtain also electronically available for recovery program to secure the up-to-date insights regarding the - downloading from the internet at "http:/

sdditional personnel to do the extra effectiveness of the revised examination /www.nrc. gov." !

work or request the NRC to prepare the process based on the staff's growing The NRC will prepare, administer. I ex:.minations. If a facility licene body of experience in reviewing the and grade initial operator licensing decides to prepare the examination and, facility-prepared examinations. Many of examinations when requested by facility :

es a result, places insufficient resources the staff comments received have licensees and at least four times a year l

~

en eithee training or testing, the quality paralleled the public comments and to maintain the proficiency ofits of its proposed licensing examinations require no further attention in this examiners. NRC examiners will use the or the passing rate on those notice. Ilowever, one recommendation criteria in the effective version of ex:minations would most likely suffer. to amend the wording of the proposed NURF.G-1021 to evaluate whether an Although many of the facility-prepared regulation is considered worthy of applicant meets the Commission's examinations have required significant discussion and incorporation. regulations. In this regard, NUREG-1021 changes to achieve NRC quality Specifically,it was recommended that is comparable to the Standard Review st ndards, the eramination results, to the rule should indicate that a key Plan (SRP), which establishes the ,

dite, are generally consistent with the manager would be responsible for criteria that the NRC uses to evaluate l r:sults on previous NRC-prepared submitting the examination because that Part 50 license applications. Licensees examinations, suggesting that the individual would be in a position to that elect to prepare their own licensing qu:lity of the facility licunsees' training ensure that the facility licensee's examinations will also be required to programs has not been affected. operations and training departments use the guidance in the effective version Therefore, the fact that facility licensees apply sufficient resources to prepare a of NUREG-1021 As provided in will have the option of preparing the quality examination. The NRC finds that NUREG-1021, licensees may identify examinations is not expected to have a the recommendation is consistent with differences from the NUREG-1021 negative effect on reactor safety. normal NRC practice and the analogous examination criteria and evaluate how l The NRC acknowledges that the regulatory requirement in S 55.31(a)(3), the proposed alternatives provide an i contract examiners identified which tequires "* *

an authorized acceptable method of complying with l representative of the facility licensee by the Commission's regulations. The NRC l procedural and training problems in

- cddition to their primary responsibility which the applicant will be employed staff will review any proposed for preparing and administering the * * *" to submit a written request that alternatives and make a decision i licensing examinations, and that they examinations be administered to the regarding their acceptability. The NRC i helped maintain examination applicant. Therefore, the wording of the will not approve any alternative that I consistency by working on final examination rule has been would compromise its statutory !

cxuninations in each of the NRC's amended to require an authorized responsibility of prescribing uniform regions. As noted in connection with representative of the facility licensee to conditions for the operator licensing examinations. ;

thz discussion of examination quality, the Commission realizes that the revise d approve the written examinations and operating tests before they are submitted Rnal Rule examination process increases the to the NRC for review and approval.

assibillt of inconsistency, but it This regulation adds a new section, believes t at the examination criteria in Availability of Guidance Document for S 55.40, " Implementation," to Subpart E Preparing Operator Licensing of to CFR Part 55. Paragraph (a) of the final version of Revision 8 of Examinations NUREG-1021, in combination with the S 55.40 states the NkC's intent to use the As a consequence of preparing and criteria in the version of NUREG-1021, NRC's examination oversight programs.

will minimize these inconsistencies so administering the initial operator " Operator Licensing Examination that they remain within acceptable licensing examinations over a number of Standards for Power Reactors,"in effect years, the NRC has developed a six months before the examination date limits. when preparing and evaluating the When the NRC initiated the pilot substantial body of guidance to aid its examiners. That guidance has been written examinations required by program, its goal was to eliminate the published in various versions of $$ 55.41 and 55.43, and the operating need for NRC contract examiners without compromising the existing NUREG-1021, the latest version of tests required by 6 55.45. The NRC uses levels of reactor safety. Because NRC which (final Revision 8) incorporates the criteria in NUREG-1021 to evaluate l ex miners will be administering all of lessons learned since interim Revision 8 whether an applicant meets the

! the operating tests, the revised process was published in February 1997, as well Commission's regulations. In this j will enable the NRC examiners to accrue as refinements prompted by the regard, NUREG-1021 is comparable to comments submitted in response to the the Standard Review Plan, which more experience in a shorter period of time and may improve the consistency FRN of August 7,1997 (62 FR 42420), establishes the criteria that the NRC

' of the operating test evaluations and the which solicited public comments in uses to evaluate Part 50 license ;

licensing decisions. Although the total conjunction with the proposed applications. Pursuant to Section 107 of ;

the AEA of 1954, as amended, the NRC number of procedures reviewe 1in the rulemaking. A copy of the final version process of developing examinations may of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021 will be must prescribe uniform conditions for I

i 1 1

rs ,

Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 78/ Friday, April 23,1999/ Rules and Regulations 19877 a

licensing individuals applying for evaluations during the dynamic maintaining the data needed, and

, operator licenses. simulator or the walk through tests. completing and reviewing the collection

.i Based on the success of the pilot Pursuant to the requirements in of information (i.e., preparing the i

examination program, paragraph (b) of . S 55.40(c), the NRC staff will prepare the examinations). 'Ibe additional, one-time

5 55.40 allows power reactor facility licensing examinations and tests upon burden for power nactor facility licensees to prepare, proctor, and grade written request by a power reactor

! the written examinations required by facility licensee in accordance with licensees that elect to prepare their S$ 55.41 and 55.43 and to prepare the licensing examinations to establish 6 55.31(a)(3). In addition, the NRC may operating tests required by 6 55.45, procedures to prevent the examinations exercise its discretion to reject a power

subject to the following conditions reactor facility licensee's determination from being compromised is not 1

(1) To ensure umformity pursuant to to prepare the r expected to exceed 100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months per '. l the ACA, the facilitylicensee shall examinationsoperating an1utred tests,written and to facility; and the burden of maintalmng prepare the examinations and tests in '

proctor and grade the written Omse pr cedures is estimated at accordance with NUREG-1021: examinations. The NRC will then approximetely 10 hours1.157407e-4 days 0.00278 hours 1.653439e-5 weeks 3.805e-6 months per facility per (2) To minimize the possibility that prepare, proctor, and grade the written Y'.ar. Send comments on any aspect of the required written examinations and examinations and prepare the operating this collection ofinformation, including operaung tests might be compromised, tests for the facility bconsee. This suggestions for reducing the burden, to the facility licensee shall establish, provision of the regulation allows the the Information and Records implement, and maintain procedures to NRC to maintain its proficiency and to Management Branch (T-6F33), U.S. !

control the security and integrity of the perform these activities if the NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission, examinations and testsi questions a licensee's ability to prepare Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by (3) To ensure that the facility an acceptable examination. internet electronic mail to bis 1@nrc. gov.

licensee's operations and training Paragraph (d) of S 55.40 reasserts that and to the Desk Officer, Office of departments apply sufficient resources the NRC will continue to prepare and Information and Regulatory Affairs, to prepare a quality examination, an administer the written examinations NEOB-10202. (3150-0101), Office of authorized representative of the facility and operating tests for non-power Management and Budget. Washington, licensee shall approve the examinations reactor facility licensees. The NRC has DC 20503.

before they are submitted to the NRC for taken this position because the non-

. review and approval: and power reactor community does not have Public Protection Notification

( " dfr an accreditation rocess for training and ua it a ma n a d e a i it The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, I 1 consee must receive Comruission lificat on or t e msources to pmpam and a person is not required to respond approval ofits proposed written Tbs u$at o also amends S 55.49 " " " "

examinations and operating tests before because t e NRC has determined, since p ays a curmn$ vaM N cond

= they are given. number.

These requirements are contam.ed in the proposed rule was published, that SS 55.40(b)(1), (2), (3), and (4) applicants, licensees, and facility Regulatory Analysis respectively. licensees may be interpreting S 55.49 too As provided in NUREG-1021, narrowly by limiting it to actual cases of The Commission has prepared a licensees may identify differences from cheating. The amendment clarifies that regulatory analysis on this regulation.

the regulation pertains to all activities The analysis examines the costs and the NUREG-1021 examination criteria i and evaluate how the proposed that could affect the equitable and benefits of the alternatives considered 1 alternatives provide an acceptable consistent administration of the by the Commission. The regulatory examination, including activities before, analysis is available for inspection in method of compliance with NRC . during, and after the examination is the NRC Ppblic Document Room,2120 regulations. The NRC staff will review any proposed alternatives and make a administered. L Street NW (Lower Levell, Washington, decision regarding their acceptability. EnvironmentalImpact: Categorical DC. Single copies of the analysis may be However, the NRC will not approve any Exclusmn obtained from Siegfried Guenther, alternative that would compromise ;ts Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

The NRC has determined that this U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, at statutory responsa,bility of prescribing rule is the type of action described as a uniform conditwns for the operator 301-415-1056 or by e-mail at categorical exclusion in to CFR sxg@nrc. gov.

licensing examinations. The NRC staff 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an will review the facility-prepared written environmentalimpact statement nor an Regulatory Flexibility Certification examinations and operating tests against environmental assessment has been the criteria in NUREG-1021 and direct prepared for this regulation. In a c rdance with the Regulatory whatever changes are necessary to Flexibility Act of 1980,(5 U.S.C.

ensure that adequate levels of quality. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement 605(b)), the Commission certifies that difficulty, and consistency are This final rule amends information this rule does not have a significant maintained. After the NRC staff reviews collection requirements that are subject economic impact on a substantial and approves a written examination, the to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 number of small entities. This rule l- facility licensee will proctor and grade (44 U.S.C. 3501 et segl. These were affects only the licensing and operation I

the examination consistent with the approved by the Office of Management of nuclear power plants. The companies l . guidance in NUREG-1021. The NRC and Budget (OMB), approval number that own these plants do not fall within staff will continue to independently 3150-0101. The additional public the scope of the definition of"small administer and grade the operating tests, reporting burden for this colhiction of entities" described in the Regulatory mview and approve the written information is estimated to average 500 Flexibility Act or the Small Business examination results, and make the final hours per response, including the time Size Standards stated in regulations licensing docisions. The facility licensee for reviewing instructions, searching issued by the Small Business will not conduct parallel operator existing data sources, gathering and Administration at 13 CFR part 121.

?

o

,. 1 c 1 I

19878- Feder:1 Register /Vol. 64, No. 78/ Friday, April 23,1999/ Rules and Regulations Small Business Regulatory Enforcement PART SS-OPERATORS' UCENSES implement, and maintain procedures to Fairness Act .

control examination security and

1. The authority citation for Part 55 In accordance with the Small int E tb" Business Regulatory Enforcement continues to read as follows: .

(3) An authon, zed representative of Fairness Act of 1996, the NRC has Authority: Sees. 107,101,182,68 Stat. the power reactor facility licensee shall determined that this action is not a 93maa53, as amended, sec. 234, as Stat. approve the required examinations and major rule and has verified this 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137,2201,2232. tests before they are submitted to the determination with the Office of 8s t 2282\s" 2 Nnb E QSC' 5u Commission for review and approval; Information an:1 Regulatory Affairs of 5842)' and OME sections 55.41,55.43,55.45, and 55.59 also (4) Power reactor facility licensees Backfit Analysis issued under sec. 300. Pub. L 97.-425,96 must receive Commission approval of Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C.10226). Section 55.61 their proposed written examinations in the proposed rule, the NRC took also issued under secs. 186,187,68 Stat. 955 and operating tests.

the position that the backfit rule (10 (42 U.S.C. 2236,2237). (c)In lieu of paragraph (b) of this i CFR 50.109) did at apply because the proposed shift in responsibility for 2. In S 55.8, paragraph (c)(4) is revised section and upon written request from i to read as follows: a power reactor facility licensee preparing the examinations: (1) Would pursuant to S 55.31(a)(3), the not constitute a " modification of the $ 55.8 information coHection Commission shall, for that facility procedures required to operate a requirements; OMB approval licensee, prepare, proctor, and grade, facility" within the scope of the backfit * * * *

the written examinations required by rule; (2) would not have affected the (4) In SS 55.40,55.41,55.43,55.45. SS 55.41 and 55.43 and the operatmg i basic procedures for qualifying licensed and 55.59, clearance is approved under tests required by S 55.45. In addition, operators: and (3) would not have control number J150-0101. the Commission may exercise its required facility licensees to alter their . . . . . discretion and reject a power reactor j organizational structures. However, facility licensee's determination to elect upon further review, the NRd has 3. A new $ 55.40 is added to read as l foggo . paragraph (b) of this section, in which !

concluded that there is insufficient basis case the Commission shall prepare, !

to support the original position. 5 55.40 implementation. proctor, and grade the required written '

Therefore, the NRC has decided to (a) The Commission shall use the examinations and operating tests for reviso the final rule so that power that facility licensee.

criteria in NUREG- 1021 " Operator i reactor facility licensees may elect t Licensing Examination Standards for prepare their written examinations and (d) The Commission shall prepare, Power Reactors,"1 in effect six months proctor, and grade the written operating tests (and proctor and grade the written examinations) in accordance before the examination date to prepare examinations required by SS 55.41 and the written examinations required by 55.43 and the operating tests required with NUREG-1021 or to have the NRC SS 55.41 and 55.43 and the operating by 6 55.45 for non-power reactor facuty prepare the examinations. Eliminating licensees.

tests required by S 55.45. The the requirement for all facility licensees Commission shall also use the criteria in 4. Section 55.49 is revised to read as to prepare their examinations and tests NUREG-1021 to evaluate the written follows:

obviates the need for a backfit analysis, examinations and operating tests Enforcement Policy Prepared by power reactor facility $ 55.49 Integ% of examinadons and testa.

in conjunction with this final rule, th" licenseca pursuant to paragraph (b) of Applicants, licensees, and facility this section. licensees shalj not engage in any Com.mtssion is separately publishmg modifications to NUREG-1600, (b) Power reactor facility licensees activity that compromises the integrity General Statement of Policy and may prepare, practor, and grade the . of any application, test, or examination Procedure for NRC Enforcement written examinations required by requirod by this part. The integrity of a Actions, to address enforcement actm.n SS 55.41 and 55.43 and may prepare the test or examination is considered against parties subject to the operating tests required by 6 55.45, compromised if any activity, regardless subject to the following conditions: of intent, affected, or, but for detection, requtrements in to CFR 55.49 (i.e., Part 55 license applicants / licensees and Part (1) Power reactor facility licensees would have affected the equitable and 50 licenseesl. shall prepare the required examinations consistent administration of the test or and tests in accordance with the criteria examination. Ttis includes activities List of Subjects in to CFR Part 55 in NUREG-1021 as described in related to the pieparation and Crimm.al penalties, Manpower paragraph (a) of this section. '

certification oflicense applications and training programs, Nuclear power plants (2) Pursuant to S 55.49, power reactor all activities related to the preparation, and reactors Reporting and facil ty licensees shall establish' administration, and grading of the tests recordkeeping requirements. and examinations required by this part.

rimukt:c. may in purchawd from the pated at Rockville. Maryland. this 19th day For the reasons given in the pream,ble snperinwna,,n, or nocuments, t ts. covermnent of April 1999.

and under the authority of the Atomic erintms om< e. Pn an 3H082. Washington. f K:

Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the 2MM-n2nopieurmino milable from the ggg g Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as Nnuunal Technkel Information Service. 52H$ Port Annette Vietti-Cook, s

amended: and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553: the ,"" Q l, y $ ,idn 1 22 1 e NRC NRC adopts the following amendments rumt om umeni n.,om. z uo L sir,,i. NW (twer [FR Doc. 99-10190 filed 4-22-99; 8.45 aml to 10 CFR part 55. Leml). Wetungton, D C. BILLING CODE 769MH'

ML20195G523: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 11:00, 16 December 2020

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

Attachment:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

ML20195G523: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 11:00, 16 December 2020

Text

SUBJECT:

Attachment:

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search