UNITED STATES 

0 .NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

January 7, 2000 

MEMORANDUM TO: Cynthia A. Carpenter, Chief 

Generic Issues-, Environmental, Financial 

and Rulemaking Branch 

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

FROM: Peter C. Wen, Project Manager '3-&, C. 

Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial 

and Rulemaking Branch 

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 16, 1999, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR 

ENERGY INSTITUTE REGARDING OPERATOR LICENSING ISSUES 

On December 16, 1999, representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Institute of 

Nuclear Power Operations(INPO) met with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff at the 

NRC offices in Rockville, Maryland. Attachment 1 lists attendees at the meeting. The purpose 

of the meeting was to discuss options related to the future implementation of Operator 

Licensing Examinations. 

This meeting was convened to review NEI-proposed options for future development, 

implementation, and evaluation of operator licensing examinations. It was emphasized that the 

options presented were for discussion only and that no decisions on any option would be made 

until a complete analysis of each had been undertaken. All options focused only upon the 

written examination. Option 1 maintained the current status quo and Option 2 opted to return to 

the full NRC examination development mode. Options 3 and 4 described more far-reaching 

options giving industry greater roles in written license examination development. A complete 

list of options presented and discussed during the meeting is provided in Attachment 2. 

After discussing all the options, it was generally agreed that the staff and the industry would 

commit to making the present program, as structured in NUREG-1 021, Revision 8, successful. 

Notwithstanding that commitment, NEI and INPO agreed to further develop Options 3 and 4 

and the NRC agreed to review the proposed options with senior management and provide 

feedback. 

In conclusion, the meeting discussions were open and were considered beneficial in 

exchanging information. 

Attachments: As stated . . 

cc w/atts: See next page VC ,or

(- u N"C- G, rQ, C -I-
MEMORANDUM TO: Cynthia A. Carpenter, Chief 

Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial 

and Rulemaking Branch 

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

FROM: Peter C. Wen, Project Manager 

Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial 

and Rulemaking Branch 

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF DECEMBER 16,1999, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR 

ENERGY INSTITUTE REGARDING OPERATOR LICENSING ISSUES 

On December 16, 1999, representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Institute of 

Nuclear Power Operations(INPO) met with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff at the 

NRC offices in Rockville, Maryland. Attachment 1 lists attendees at the meeting. The purpose 

of the meeting was to discuss options related to the future implementation of Operator 

Licensing Examinations. 

This meeting was convened to review NEI-proposed options for future development, 

implementation, and evaluation of operator licensing examinations. It was emphasized that 

the options presented were for discussion only and that no decisions on any option would be 

made until a complete analysis of each had been undertaken. All options focused only upon 

the written examination. Option 1 maintained the current status quo and Option 2 opted to 

return to the full NRC examination development mode. Options 3 and 4 described more far

reaching options giving industry greater roles in written license examination development. A 

complete list of options presented and discussed during the meeting is provided in Attachment 

2. 

After discussing all the options, it was generally agreed that the staff and the industry would 

commit to making the present program, as structured in NUREG-1021, Revision 8, successful. 

Notwithstanding that commitment, NEI and INPO agreed to further develop Options 3 and 4 

and the NRC agreed to review the proposed options with senior management and provide 

feedback. 

In conclusion, the meeting discussions were open and were considered beneficial in 

exchanging information. 

Attachments: As stated 

cc w/atts: See next page 

DISTRIBUTION: See attached page 

Document Name: g:\pxw\msuml2l6.wpd *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE 

OFFICE PM:RGEB:DRIP IOLB:IPM SC: IOLB:IPM SC:RGEB 

NAME PWen* GUsova* DTrimble* SWest* 

DATE 01/04/2000 01/04/2000 01/07/2000 01/07/2000 

OFFICIAL OFFICE COPY
Nuclear Energy Institute

cc: Mr. Ralph Beedle 

Senior Vice President 

and Chief Nuclear Officer 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

Suite 400 

1776 I Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006-3708 

Mr. Alex Marion, Director 

Programs 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

Suite 400 

1776 I Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006-3708 

Mr. David Modeen, Director 

Engineering 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

Suite 400 

1776 I Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006-3708 

Mr. Anthony Pietrangelo, Director 

Licensing 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

Suite 400 

1776 I Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006-3708 

Mr. Jim Davis, Director 

Operations 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

Suite 400 

1776 I Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006-3708

Ms. Lynnette Hendricks, Director 

Plant Support 

Nuclear Energy Institute 

Suite 400 

1776 I Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006-3708 

Mr. Charles B. Brinkman, Director 

Washington Operations 

ABB-Combustion Engineering, Inc. 

12300 Twinbrook Parkway, Suite 330 

Rockville, Maryland 20852 

Mr. H. A. Sepp, Manager 

Regulatory and Licensing Engineering 

Westinghouse Electric Company 

P.O. Box 355 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230-0355

Project No. 689
NRCINEI MEETING ON OPERATOR LICENSING ISSUES 

LIST OF ATTENDEES 

December 16, 1999 

ORGANIZATION

Bruce Boger 

Robert Gallo 

Dave Trimble 

George Usova 

Fred Guenther 

John Munro 

Steve Dennis* 

Brian Holian* 

Chris Christensen 

David Hills* 

Jay Hopkins 

John L. Pellet* 

James Davis 

Bob Post 

Mike Levitan

NRR/DIPM 

NRR/DIPM/IOLB 

NRR/DIPM/IOLB 

NRR/DIPM/IOLB 

NRRIDIPM/IOLB 

NRR/DIPM/IOLB 

RI 

RI 

RII 

Rill 

Rill 

RIV 

NEI 

NEI 

INPO

*via telephone

Attachment 1

NAME
DISTRIBUTION: MTG. NOTICE W/NEI on Operator Licensing Issues 

Hard Copy 

Central File 

PUBLIC 

RGEB r/f 

IOLB r/f 

OGC 

ACRS 

PWen 

GUsova 

EMail 

SCollins/RZimmerman 

BSheron 

JJohnson 

DMatthews/S Newberry 

CCarpenter 

SWest 

BBorger/FGillespie 

DTimble 

JBirmingham 

R Conte,RI 

C Christensen, RiI 

D Hills, Rill 

J Pellet, RIV 

M Tschiltz, OEDO 

OPA
Questions to be answered:

Who issues the license? 

Is the written exam part of the license process per 10 CFR? 

(YES/NO) 

Who writes the exam? 

(FAC/NRC/INPO) 

Who approves the exam? 

(FAC/NRC/INPO) 

Who Provides oversight of the program? 

(NRC/INPO) 

Type of oversight 

(Before/During/Post Exam) or (Special Program/Accredited Program) 

How are appeals handled? 

(FAC/NRC/INPO) 

Restraints: 

1. The relationship between INPO/NRC must be considered when 

determining oversight methodology. 

2. Candidate must not be subject to post-exam scrutiny. (i.e. "once 

qualified, always qualified"). 

3. Chief Nuclear Officers feel strongly that the NRC maintain the 

licensing decision.
Operator Licensing Written Exam Options

NRC senior management has indicated that they desire that the industry accept more 

responsibility for operator licensing process. The practice of having either the industry prepare 

ILO written exams (reviewed by the NRC staffM or having the regional staff prepare the exams is 

resource intensive. NRC senior management has requested that NEI explore the possibility of 

having the ILO written exam be wholly written, approved and administered by the utility as part 

of ILO training in preparation for the NRC administered ILO exam (JPM's and operating exam). 

Option 1. Maintain the "status quo" of voluntary written exam preparation by 

utilities, submitted to the NRC prior to approval. 

Issues: 

=* Uncertainty in "volunteer" rate. 

=> Utilities are competing for examiners/exam dates. 

=> No rulemaking required. 

=> Cost (NRC charge-back to utilities -440 man-hours for utility 

prepared, 880 man-hours for NRC prepared). 

=> Utility preparation time ranges from 800-2500 man-hours. 

=> Need to improve efficiency and predictability 

Option 2. Return to NRC preparation and administration of ILO written exams: 

Issues: 

=> Would require a resultant increase in NRC examiners to support 

examinations. 

SRepresents a step backwards. 

SIndustry competition for exam dates would occur to satisfy the utilities 

needs for replacement licenses. 

SUse of contractors is not a good answer. 

SCost (NRC charge-back to utilities -880 man-hours for NRC prepared). 

SWould require a resultant increase in NRC budget. 

QSme utilities are happy with the current process and would resist 

returning to this method. They would rather prepare the exams since 

they are the "technical experts" for their plant, feel that they can 

prepare a better exam, and desire to have control of the process.
Option 3. Utility preparation and administration of written exam without prior NRC 

review (NRC oversight and inspection similar to the Requalification 

Program). 

Issues: 

= Reduced number of NRC examiners to support examinations. 

SNRC staff focused on oversight/inspection of process (similar to 

requalification program inspections). 

SRulemaking would be required. 

= Increased utility arbitration/litigation from appeals/filing grievances? 

= Utility must have demonstrated the ability to successfully 

prepare/administer exam? (Successfully prepared an exam under NRC 

scrutiny/review). 

to the process would be generated if there is the possibility 

that the adequacy of the written exam (which was given by the utility 

w/o required- NRC approval) would be second-guessed by the NRC 

during administration of the JPM's and simulator exams. 

=NRC maintains licensing determination. To do so otherwise, would 

result in an unacceptable increase in utility liability. 

Option 4. Utility preparation and administration of written exam under the 

accredited program with INPO oversight. 

Issues: 

= Less NRC involvement during the written exam. 

SMore NRC emphasis on JPM's/Operating test and inspection. 

SMajor Rule change would be required. 

S Would allow elimination of a large portion of NUREG 1021. 

=> Exam based on SAT process with format and content other than that 

dictated by NUREG 1021. 

= Test could be designed based on the SAT process instead of the K/A 

catalog. 

SVery efficient for all involved. 

SNRC maintains licensing determination. 

=> Public Perception?
Points germane to the alternatives: 

Current "Requalification Process" (utility prepared and administered with periodic NRC 

inspection) is working well. Utility managed exams can be effective, especially if the utility has 

successfully demonstrated the ability to do so via direct NRC oversight while preparing exams 

since the inception of the pilot process. 

How does the proposed INPO maintained "National Question Bank" fit into the picture? Where 

would "new Questions" approved by the NRC come from? 

When does the applicant obtain the right to appeal? Currently a candidate can challenge the 

results of a written exam through the appeal process. If the exam is given as part of the training 

program, what are the implications? Could the candidate challenge the results through an 

internal "grievance process"? Would this result in an increase in utility legal fees for arbitration? 

Appeals for JPM/Operating exam failure would be continued to be addressed by the NRC IAW 

the current process? 

At what point would the final applications be due? Currently the preliminary applications are 

due at -30 days and the final applications are due at -14 days (typically after the utility 

administered audit exam). The "official" license application would be made by the utility after 

the applicant had successfully completed the written examination before the JPMIOperating 

exam was administered?
Rules currently require the NRC to approve written examinations:

§55.40 Implementation. 

(a) The Commission shall use the criteria in NUREG-1021, "Operator Licensing Examination Standards for Power Reactors," (1) in effect six 

months before the examination date to prepare the written examinations required by §§55.41 and 55.43 and the operating tests required by 5 and operating tests 1 U 

Spursuant to paragraph (b) of this section. 

(b) V I and may prepare the 

operating tests required by §55.45 

(2) Pursuant to §55.49, power reactor facility licensees shall establish, implement, and maintain procedures to control examination security and 

integrity; 

(3) AllmhrD' a c', ýeQ 

•1-) and operating tests. 

(c) In lieu of paragraph (b) of this section and upon written request from a power reactor facility licensee pursuant to §55.31(a)(3), the 

Commission shall, for that facility licensee, prepare, proctor, and grade, the written examinations required by §§55.41 and 55.43 and the 

operating tests required by §55.45. In addition, the Commission may exercise its discretion and reject a power reactor facility licensee's 

determination to elect paragraph (b) of this section, in which case the Commission shall prepare, proctor, and grade the required written 

examinations and operating tests for that facility licensee. 

(d) The Commission shall prepare, proctor, and grade the written examinations required by §§55.41 and 55.43 and the operating tests required by 

§ 55.45 for non-power reactor facility licensees. 

Appeals: 

ES-502 would require changes. 

§2.103 Action on applications for byproduct, source, special nuclear material, and operator licenses. 

(a) If the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, finds that an 

application for a byproduct, source, special nuclear material, or operator license complies with the requirements of the Act, the Energy 

Reorganization Act, and this chapter, he will issue a license. If the license is for a facility, or for receipt of waste radioactive material from other 

persons for the purpose of commercial disposal by the waste disposal licensee, or if it is to receive and possess high-level radioactive waste at a 

geologic repository operations area pursuant to part 60 of this chapter, the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or the Director of Nuclear 

Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, will inform the State, tribal and local officials specified in §2.104(e) of the issuance of the license. 

For notice of issuance requirements for licenses issued pursuant to part 61 of this chapter, see §2.106(d) of this part. 

(b) If the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation or Director of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, as appropriate, finds that an application 

does not comply with the requirements of the Act and this chapter he may issue a notice of proposed denial or a notice of denial of the application 

and inform the applicant in writing of: (1) The nature of any deficiencies or the reason for the proposed denial or the denial, and (2) The right of 

the applicant to demand a hearing within twenty (20) days from the date of the notice or such longer period as may be specified in the notice.
APPLICABLE HISTORY

11/2/94 NRC denied Virginia Power's proposal to allow utilities to develop exams and stated that: 

"The NRC is bound by the Atomic Energy Act to prescribe uniform conditions for licensing 

individuals as operators and to determine the qualifications of such individuals." 

3/24/95 SECY-95-075 announces pilot program for changes to ILO process. "Facility licensees will 

draft and in part conduct initial licensing examinations with NRC oversight." 

6/95 The rule, 10 CFR 55 does not indicate who prepares or administers the ILO examination. 

There was extended discussion between the NRC staff, INIPO and NEI on how the process 

should be modified. From that discussion: 

* The NRC staff was interested in reducing their resource commitment. 

* The NRC staff felt they needed to observe each candidate, to form a basis for the 

Commission issued license. They felt this could be accomplished by conducting the 

operating test. 

* Confirmation that the rule did not dictate who would conduct the various pieces of the 

exam. Rulemaking was not required. 

a Chief Nuclear Officers felt strongly that INPO should not take over the entire process 

since a Commission issued license was important from a legal perspective. 

6/27/95 A working group meeting (held at INPO) discussed the NRC's desire for increased utility 

responsibility in the ILO process: 

Currently, accreditation of the ILO program ends with the culmination of the training 

program. Although there are some general examination requirements for NLO training, 

there is nothing that could be quickly upgraded to cover any part of the examination 

process. This is a direct result of a longstanding policy that INPO not get involved in 

regulatory areas. 

There was great concern over the NRC giving up the approval process. Any process that 

would subject the utility to post examination review or audit would be unsatisfactory. The 

examination needs to be fully acceptable to everyone before it is given. 

Utilities stated that they don't want dual guidance. Some in the working group felt they 

would get - general SAT approach form the National Academy (ACAD guidance) and a 

prescriptive process from the NRC. The net result might be then, that an exam writer 

might violate one or the other no matter how the examination was prepared. The concern 

for dual guidance was frequently stressed during the rest of the discussion. At the time of 

the 6/27/95 meeting several utilities felt that there was adequate guidance in the NUREG 

and there was no need for more guidance from INPO on exam preparation. 

23/98 Hugh Thompson, in discussions with Mark Peifer (INPO), suggested that the industry 

propose taking over the Initial Licensed Operator (ILO) written examination as part of the 

INPO accredited program. Thompson was looking for alternative approaches in addressing 

weaknesses the NRC was seeing in utility prepared examinations (the exam questions were 

not meeting the higher review standard the NRC was applying), and in addressing 

restrictive instructor isolation requirements. 

aij C,:, o Qi ý....rnvved by the commission (3 for, 2 against) to continue allowing 

1&eJceCs to voluntarily prepare Initial Licensed Operator Exams.
) Issues Part of Who 

icense? 10 CFR? writes the 

,. 3T n 9

Who approves 

the exam?

Facility 

(rule change 

required)

Ti c only 

acc: table 

an'. v3r is to 

hav' the NRC 

iw te the 

;,nse.

Who Provides oversight 

of the program?

Type of 

oversight

t +

NRC

INPO

Before exam

NRC

During exam Facility 

NRC

Post exam

Special program

______________________________________________________ I

Accredited 

Program

Facility

NRC

Facility

INPO

Facility

TMPfl

INPO 

(rule change 

required)

INfU bpecial program

Accredited 

Program

During exam

Post exam

NRC

How are appeals handled (for the 

written exam)?

Facility

Pacmtv

INPO

Facility

TKTTPf

I
Who approves 

the exam? of the program?

HN -'U 

(rule change 

required)

INFU Special 

program

Accredited 

Program

During exam

Post exam

ac 

an, 

h, 

th,

c, only 

ý table 

ver is to 

xve the 

C issue 

1 cense.

oversight

vacuity

INPO

INPO 

Facility
-1--) •Issues 

thý '"icense?

a( 

havý

only 

otable 

ver is to 

the NRC 

i-: e the 

[Cnse

Part of 

10 CFR?

No 

(rule 

change 

required)

Who 

writes the 

exam?

Facility

Who approves 

the exam?

I I

Who Provides oversight 

of the program?

NRC I

Type of How are appeals handled (for the, 

oversight written exam)?

During exam 

Post exam

Facility 

INPO

Accredited 

Program

______________________________________________________ I

Accredited 

Program

_______ I _________ I ______ i

NRC NRC Before exam

Wa I ht

-Pacuity 

INPO

Facility

INPO

Facility

INPO

Facility 

NRC

During exam Facility 

NRC

Post exam Facility 

NRC

______-________ [ ___________ I _____________ I ____________________ I I I

I I I

INPO Special program i

1:
A Issues 

tCE iuase?

a

N

ý only 

ptable 

er is to 

ve the 

C issue 

hicense

Part of 10 

CFR?

-± FNo 

(rule 

change 

require t)

Who 

writes 

the 

exam?

INPO 

NRC

Who approves 

the exam?

Who Provides oversight 

of the program?

INFO

Type of 

oversight

Special 

program

Accredited 

Program

How are appeals handled (for the 

written exam)?

INPO

INPO

NRU

Post exam

__ J ___ [ ___ [ _____ I I

IFacility

Facility