ML20247N187

Errata to Operator Licensing Examiner Stds, Consisting of Corrected Memo

ML20247N187
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/12/1989
From:	Perkins K Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
References
NUREG-1021, NUREG-1021-ERR, NUREG-1021-R05-ERR, NUREG-1021-R5-ERR, NUDOCS 8906050262
Download: ML20247N187 (6)

Text

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

8 o, UNITED STATES

!  % NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 E- WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 f

q) ..... May 12, 1989 MEMORANDUM FOR: Recipients of NUREG 1021 REV. 5/ Training Coordinators ai FROM: Kenneth E. Perkins, Jr., Chief or Operator Licensing Branch Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evluation, NRR

-Enclosed is a copy of the errata correction memo to the Examiner Standards (NUREG 1021), including corrections to ES-601.

If I can be of further assistance please call me on (301) 492-1031.

Sincerely, g14/ ,-

If Kenneth E. Perkins, Jr., Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of Licensee Performance

(' - and Quality Evaluation, NRR

Enclosures:

As stated l

l 4

i

('

y

(~ 8906050262 890512 l

PDR NUREG PDR Ii 1021 R

)

i

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ .__ __- l

b i

. s u, .

\

/ .

UNITED STATES  !

18 o NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l g ;i

l. wAsmNGTON. D. C. 20666 i

, ( * *, ,/f l FEB is 1989

'MENORANDUM FOR: Those on Attached List FROM: Kenneth E. Perkins, Jr., Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation, NRR .

f

SUBJECT:

EXAMINER STANDARD CORRECTIONS You recently received an advance copy of Revision 5 of the Operator Licensing-Examiner Standards (NUREG-1021) and will soon receive final copies of the same document. Several errors have been detected since the Standards were sent to the contractor for reproduction and distribution. They were discussed during the weekly NRR operator licensing conference calls and the management counter-part meeting of 25-26 January and are sumanarized below. , .

The corrections made to ES-401, " Preparation of Written Examinations," warrant discussion here. A significant benefit derived from the written examination, is the ability to sample across a large area of required safaty related K/As, 1.e., a horizontal slice of the candidates knowledge, whereas the operating O test presents the ideal opportunity to test in depth in specific areas, i.e.,

a' vertical slice of the applicants' knowledge. To accomplish this large horizontal sampling, the examiners are being taught to start with approximately 100 K/As from the catalogs (NUREGs 1122 & 1123) and then, as necessary, to tailor the exam to the specific facility based upon concerns related to facility or industry generated LERs or other events and considerations. The end product should be'a written examination of between 80 to 110 important, safety-related, job relevant, objective, single answer questions with a large' sampling base. The advantages of single answer .

questions and traditional objective questions (multiple choice, matching, etc.)overthemulti-partpartialcreditquestionsfaroutweighthe disadvantages. Experience has shown this.is true with respect to the vultierabibty of the latter type questions in the appeals / hearing process and the resource expenditures in this area. It is a program goal to attain a 100%

objective written examination. The program will continue to pursue an approach that will lead to a machine gradable written examination, similar to the fundamentals examination. This goal can be attained while maintaining a professional basis for licensing decisions that meet high safety standards.

We do not intend to. issue a change notice to all holders of Revision 5 and ask that you promulgate the following pen and ink changes to your staff and

, facility training representatives, as appropriate. With the exception of items 6.b and 6.c, tie changes described below shall be implemented immediately. Items 6.b and 6.c may be implemented incrementally, but shall be fully integrated by October 1,1989.

O

a 2-1.-

In ES 201,(page Schedule," Attachment 8 of 18 2.)" Letter replace thetoninth Facility Formalizing paragraph with the Examination following:

This request is covered by Office of Management and Budget Clearance Number 3150-0101 which expires May 31, 1989. The estimated average-burden-is 7.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> per response, including gathering, xeroxing 1 and mailing the required material. Comments on the accuracy of this i estimate and suggestions to reduce the burden may be directed to the Ottice of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (3150-0101), Room 3208, New Executive Office Building,' Washington t

D.C. 20503, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Records and' Reports Management Branch, Office of Information Resources Management Washington, D.C. 20555

2. In the last sentence of Paragraph E in ES-203, " Eligibility Requirements for Reactor Operator and Senior Reactor Operator License Applicants at ,.

Non-power Reactors," change the parenthetic limit on the maximum number of written examination categories that can be waived from two to five.

This makes it consistent with ES-404,," Written Examinations for Non-power Reactors."

3. Delete Paragraph D.9 of ES-204, " Processing Waivers Requested by Reactor Cperator and Senior Reactor Operator Applicants," and renusber the O following paragraph. In compliance with 10 CFR 55.31 and the NRC 398 Torm,'this standard waiver was supposed to be deleted from Revision 5 of the Examiner Standards. The Regions are NOT authorized to waive these requirements-if requested by a license applicant. -

4. Change the first sentence of the'second subparagraph in Section G.3.a of ES-301, " Preparation of Operating Tests," to read that simulator .

scenarios shall be "... received seven working days prior to the start of the week in which they will be administered."

-(As a matter of clarification regarding the disposition of Attachments 7, 8, g, and 10: Since the competence tactor performance ratings are

, summarized in the matrix in Section C.1 of the 157 Form, there is no need to retain Attachments 7 and 8 beyond the candidate's licensing date or 4 the date on which he/she accepts a final denial. As stated on page 15 of .

ES-301, Attachments g and 10 are intended as examiner aids and are not l required to be retained as permanent records.)

5. Change the third sentence of the second subparagraph in Section D.5.b of ES-303, " Documentation and Grading of 0)erating Tests," to reference the

... rating factors of ES-301, paragrapt G.3.b."

' 6.

The following: corrections apply to ES-401, " Preparation of Written Examinations .

a. Change the sixth subparagraph in Section B (page 1 of 7) to read as

3

/ follows: "The examiner shall prepare the examination so that a (v]j minimally competent applicant shall be able to comfortably complete the examination (including review of his/her answers) within a six hour time period. When' creating the examination, the examiner shall-estimate 2 minutes per response for multiple choice, matching, and completion items and 3-4 minutes per response for short answer

questions. These examination item time allowances will produce a broad based examination containing 80 to 120 discrete questions.  ;

Where a relations tp exists in the items they should be grouped on ,

a the examination t 'ther. For example, in Categories 1 and 4 all  ;

component question. thould be grouped together, all theory questions grouped together arc all thermodynamic questions grouped together.

In the remaining Categories, if as a result of plant specific or industry LERs or events, it is appropriate to ask two or three questions on the same operation, procedure, system, interlock, etc. i those two or three separate questions should he grouped together. l The intent of the written examination is that it sample across a .)

large body of knowledge as opposed to the in depth sampling that ' '

occurs in the operating test on a relatively small body of  !

knowledge." ]

b. Change Paragraph B.1 to read as follows: "At least 75% of the points in Categories 2, 3, 5 and 6 will be multiple choice, matching, or completion (fill in the blank)."*

• m c. Change Paragraph B.2 to read es follows: "No more than 25% ot the

/ points in Cetegories 2, 3, 5 and 6 may be short-answer questions,

' V) 1.e. requiring only 1 or 2 simple sentences to respond to discrete questions."*

d. Delete Paragraph B.3 and renumber the subsequent paragraphs.

e. Change new Paragraph B.3 to read as follows: " Categories 1 and 4 shall consist of a minimum of 85% of questions in the format described in 1 above and preferably 100%." -

f. Change new Paragraph B.5 to read that "...there shall be no more than 25% question duplication from the past two examinations at the same facility."

g ., ' Delete the second sentence regarding long essays from new Paragraph B.7.

h. Change the second sentence of Paragraph D.6 to read that questions from the. facility bank "... shall not exceed 10% of the questions in

> that bank.-

1. Change the second sentence in Paragraph E.6 to read that "... no 6 single topic is worth more than four points of that category."

Similarly, change Attachment 3. Item 6 to reflect the same limit.

O

• Note: These items may be. implemented incrementally, but shall be fully 1 i

\ intergrated by Detober 1,1989.

t-4-

O 7. .The following corrections apply to ES-601, " Administration of NRC Requalification Program Evaluations":

a. _ Add the following sentence to the end of Paragraph C.3.b.(2): "If one or two of the following are applicable, the program may be  ;

e determined to be unsatisfactory." '

b. Deletethelastsentence-(atthe'topofpage'6of79)inParagraph

. C.3.b.(2)(c).

c. Reword Paragraph D.I.c.(2)(a)4-(at the bottom of page.11 of 79)'to read as follows: "A crew judged UNSATISFACTORY in the simulator by the NRC evaluators shall be given remedial training and evaluated prior to being returned to shift as substantially the same crew.

With respect to determining the ' adequacy of the facility's program, the performance of all crews evaluated will be considered.

Individual failures will be dealt with according to OLB-MC-225." -

d. Change Paragraph D.I.c.(2)(c).4 (on page 13) to require.the program to be judged unsatisfactory if "... more than one third of the crews are determined to be UNSATISFACTORY by the NRC..."

e. Add the following at the end of the second subparagraph under D.3.b.(1)(a)(onpage19): "If less than 650 items are detennined to be appropriate for the NRC examination, the question bank will not meet NRC requirements and the NRC examiners may generate edditional questions for the examination. The Chief Examiner, in

= consultation with the Section Chief, will determine the number of questions required (the 20% limit is no longer binding)."

f. Replace the ninth paragraph of Attachment 1 " Corporate Notification -

Letter," (page 27 of 79) with the following:

This request is covered by Office of Management and Budget --

Clearance Number 3150-0101 which expires May 31,1989. The estimated average burden is 7.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br /> per response, including gathering, xeroxiag and mailing the required material. Comments on the accuracy of this estimate and suggestions to reduce the burden may be directed to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project ~

(3150-0101), Room 3208, New Executive Office Building, Washington D.C. 20503, and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission, Records and Reports Management Branch. Office of Information Resources Management, Washington, D.C. 20555

g. Change the second sentence of Attachment 2 " Pre-examination Security Agreement," to restrict participation in operator

+ instruction "... commencing (*). days prior to the examination."

O

Change the footnote to read as follows: "* Duration to be determined by the Chief Examiner."

I regret any confusion these errors may have created ar.d invite both the-Regional and contractor offices to raise any other errors or inconsistencies a

to the attention of Messrs. Fred Guenther (492-1043) or Bill Dean (492-1053).

All concerns will be evaluated, addressed and cataloged for inclusion in Revision 6 of the Examiner Standards. .

1 Kenneth E. Ferkins, Jr. Chief Operator Licensing Branch Division of Licensee Performance and Quality Evaluation, NRR I

v 9

4 4

O

UNITED STATES ,ns, cass mas NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION *05 ASE

• nas eAio WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 "'

120555139333 US NRC-0ADM I#NIISIIP'IIH1 _

" * "'N C "

OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOP PRIVATE USE,4300 V F0I4 & PUBLICATION"c eyce

- a p,g g PDR-NURcg WASHINGTON DC 20555 6

i O

O l

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