September 1, 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 /RA/ Signed by P. Wen

Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial

and Rulemaking Branch

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF AUGUST 16, 2000, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR

ENERGY INSTITUTE REGARDING OPERATOR LICENSING ISSUES

On August 16, 2000, the NRC staff participated in a public meeting with the Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI) in their offices at 1776 I Street (NW), Washington, DC, to discuss issues related

to the implementation of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination

Standards for Power Reactors,” and the significance determination process (SDP) for issues

identified during licensed operator requalification program inspections. Attachment 1 lists

attendees at the meeting.

This was the latest in a series of public “focus group” meetings intended to promote the

efficient, effective, and consistent preparation and administration of initial operator licensing

examinations now that facility licensees are preparing approximately 75 percent of those

examinations in accordance with 10 CFR 55.40. The meeting focused primarily on the status of

outstanding issues, including the proposed NUREG-1021 Supplement, Revision 3 of Regulatory

Guide 1.8, "Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," proposed longterm examination options, NUREG-1262, “Answers to Questions at Public Meetings Regarding

Implementation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55 on Operators’ Licenses,” the

Generic Fundamentals Examination, the proposed reactivity manipulation rule change (65 FR

41021), and the requalification significance determination process. These issues had been

raised during prior meetings (the last of which was held on April 26, 2000; refer to ADAMS

Accession Number ML003711211 for a summary of that meeting). A brief synopsis of each

issue is provided in Attachment 2.

During the meeting, NEI provided a draft concept paper that outlined a possible future revision

of the initial operator licensing written examination process. This concept paper expands upon

the “Option 3" concept that was first proposed by NEI during a meeting on December 16, 1999

(refer to ADAMS Accession Number ML003674091 for a summary of that meeting), and is

included in Attachment 3. Attachments 4 and 5 include an industry-developed list of questions

in NUREG-1262, that the industry would like to see incorporated into the frequently asked

questions on the NRC’s operator licensing web site and NRC-developed graphs plotting the

average scores on the BWR and PWR generic fundamentals examinations from October 1991

through July 2000.

Project No. 689

Attachments: As stated

cc w/atts: See next page
September 1, 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 /RA/ Signed by P. Wen

Generic Issues, Environmental, Financial

and Rulemaking Branch

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF AUGUST 16, 2000, MEETING WITH THE NUCLEAR

ENERGY INSTITUTE REGARDING OPERATOR LICENSING ISSUES

On August 16, 2000, the NRC staff participated in a public meeting with the Nuclear Energy

Institute (NEI) in their offices at 1776 I Street (NW), Washington, DC, to discuss issues related

to the implementation of Revision 8 of NUREG-1021, “Operator Licensing Examination

Standards for Power Reactors,” and the significance determination process (SDP) for issues

identified during licensed operator requalification program inspections. Attachment 1 lists

attendees at the meeting.

This was the latest in a series of public “focus group” meetings intended to promote the

efficient, effective, and consistent preparation and administration of initial operator licensing

examinations now that facility licensees are preparing approximately 75 percent of those

examinations in accordance with 10 CFR 55.40. The meeting focused primarily on the status of

outstanding issues, including the proposed NUREG-1021 Supplement, Revision 3 of Regulatory

Guide 1.8, "Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," proposed longterm examination options, NUREG-1262, “Answers to Questions at Public Meetings Regarding

Implementation of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 55 on Operators’ Licenses,” the

Generic Fundamentals Examination, the proposed reactivity manipulation rule change (65 FR

41021), and the requalification significance determination process. These issues had been

raised during prior meetings (the last of which was held on April 26, 2000; refer to ADAMS

Accession Number ML003711211 for a summary of that meeting). A brief synopsis of each

issue is provided in Attachment 2.

During the meeting, NEI provided a draft concept paper that outlined a possible future revision

of the initial operator licensing written examination process. This concept paper expands upon

the “Option 3" concept that was first proposed by NEI during a meeting on December 16, 1999

(refer to ADAMS Accession Number ML003674091 for a summary of that meeting), and is

included in Attachment 3. Attachments 4 and 5 include an industry-developed list of questions

in NUREG-1262, that the industry would like to see incorporated into the frequently asked

questions on the NRC’s operator licensing web site and NRC-developed graphs plotting the

average scores on the BWR and PWR generic fundamentals examinations from October 1991

through July 2000.

Project No. 689 Accession No.: ML003749531

Attachments: As stated Template NRC-001

cc w/atts: See next page

DISTRIBUTION: See attached page

Document Name: g:\pxw\msum0816.wpd

*See Previous Concurrence

OFFICE PM:RGEB:DRIP SC:IOLS:DIPM BC:IOLB:DIPM SC:RGEB

NAME PWen* DTrimble* GTracy SWest

DATE 08/24/00 08/24/00 08/31/00 09/01/00

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
DISTRIBUTION: Mtg. Summary w/NEI Re Operator Licensing Issues

Hard Copy

ADAMS

PUBLIC

IOLB r/f

RGEB r/f

OGC

ACRS

PWen

S Guenther

EMail

SCollins/RZimmerman

BSheron

JJohnson

DMatthews/CAder

CCarpenter

SWest

B Boger/F Gillespie

G Tracy

D Trimble

M Satorius, OEDO

R Conte, RI

M Ernstes, RII

D Hills, RIII

J Pellet, RIV

OPA
PUBLIC MEETING WITH NEI REGARDING OPERATOR LICENSING ISSUES

August 16, 2000

List of Attendees

Name Company E-mail Phone

Elena Dryden Licensing Information

Service

edryden@scientech.com 202-488-1464

Sam Shoppell General Physics sshoppell@genphysics.com 803-649-0515

Richard Conte NRC/RI rjc@nrc.gov 610-337-5183

Bill Fitzpatrick INPO fitzpatrickwe@inpo.org 770-644-8503

Paul DiGiovanna ComEd paul.a.digiovanna@ucm.com 815-458-7518

Jeff Hansen ComEd jeff.l.hansen@ucm.com 815-458-7605

Dave Trimble NRC / HQ dct@nrc.gov 301-415-2942

Glenn Tracy NRC gmt@nrc.gov 301-415-1031

Bruce Boger NRC / HQ bab2@nrc.gov 301-415-1004

George Usova NRC / HQ gmu@nrc.gov 301-415-1064

Mike Ernstes NRC/RII mee@nrc.gov 404-562-4632

Fred Guenther NRC / HQ sxg@nrc.g0v 301-415-1056

John Munro NRC / HQ jfm@nrc.gov 301-415-1097

John Pellet NRC/RIV jlp@nrc.gov 817-860-8159

David Hills NRC / RIII deh@nrc.gov 630-829-9733

Michael Shea APS/Palo Verde moshea@apsc.com 623-393-1785

Rich Chin PP&L rechin@pplweb.com 570-542-3553

Gregg Ludlam CP&L gregg.ludlam@cplc.com 910-457-3618

Jim Davis NEI jwd@nei.org 202-739-8105

Mary Ann Ashley NRC/HQ mab@nrc.gov 301-415-1073

Dick Eckenrode NRC/HQ rje1@nrc.gov 301-415-3172

Tom Houghton NEI 202-739-8000

ATTACHMENT 1
ˇ 

Operator Licensing Meeting With NEI on August 16, 2000

Agenda Item Discussion Summary

1. NUREG-1021

Supplement

- The industry representatives indicated that the Supplement 1 change that elimtrack the repetition of questions from training quizzes is proving to be a “tremenreduction.” However, they raised four areas of concern that will be addressed in formal comments on the proposed supplement: (1) they would like the NRC to cfor selecting SRO-only questions because examiners are rejecting questions thbelieve are based on randomly selected knowledges and abilities (K/As) that ar10 CFR 55.43; (2) they would like to implement the 80 bank / 10 modified / 10 ndistribution as soon as possible; (3) they suggested that the NRC consider comand B of the operating test as part of the supplement; and (4) they requested thfourth option for preparing the audit examination (i.e., by an independent team)- The NRC staff indicated that it would consider the industry’s feedback. The stneed to confirm that the written exam sample plans are being randomly developimplemented with randomly selected questions that conform with the selected toprovide the basis for continuing with Supplement 1 and may set the stage for otmeasures in the future (e.g., possibly increasing the upper limit on bank questiopercent, which the staff emphasized is not a part of the Supplement 1 pilot progacknowledged the industry’s desire to combine the operating test categories, buis not being considered as part of current pilot program.- The NRC staff reported that more facility licensees have been requesting the Nrandom written exam sample plans and inquired whether the industry saw a neeenhance its capability in that area. The industry indicated that it would determinlicensees are using the random sampling programs developed by the owners’ g- The INPO representative provided an update on the national exam bank, indiccontains about 3200 unverified questions and about 2000 that have been verifiecopies. They are adding about 500 new questions per week. There was some regarding the minimum data required to support each question and the best methe electronic exam files to INPO for processing. NEI indicated that it would lenstandardizing the question format.
2. Regulatory Issue

Summary (RIS);Regulatory Guide(RG) 1.8, Revision 3

- The NRC staff summarized the proposed changes to the license application (Nincluding the need to document those areas in which the applicant’s qualificatiocurrent guidelines established by the National Academy for Nuclear Training. Tno comments had been received in response to the recent Federal Register not

pursuant to renewal of the associated OMB information collection clearance.- The NRC staff indicated that the RIS on license eligibility is expected to be issseveral months, which the INPO representative noted would coincide with the eNational Academy’s eligibility guidelines. The staff indicated that it would try to amendments requested to conform with the National Academy guidelines and R- The NRC staff also noted that it will soon be issuing another RIS soliciting vollicensee examination needs for fiscal years 2001 through 2004.

3. Proposed Long-Term

Examination Options

- The industry representatives distributed and discussed an outline (Attachment assumptions, pros, and cons of long-term examination Option 3 (utility preparatadministration of the written exams with NRC oversight and inspection similar to program but without prior NRC review), a concept that was originally introduced meeting on December 16, 1999 (Accession No. ML 003674091). They noted thexpected to formally submit papers describing Option 3 and Option 4 (a similar oversight) in about a month and enquired how best to proceed after the NRC haopportunity to review both options.- The NRC staff indicated that it would have to get back to NEI regarding the apinitiating the proposed changes. The staff emphasized the need to maintain sathe following concerns: (1) the NRC will likely need a clear indication of strong ibefore it would be willing to dedicate the resources that will be necessary to amand develop the necessary implementation guidance; (2) the industry’s desire to voluntary would make it more difficult for the NRC staff to manage its resources would have three ways to license their operators; (3) the NRC’s resources are npursue Option 3 or 4, while at the same time continuing to refine the current exa(4) there is not much data to support assumption 3 (see Attachment 3) - the stadate, suggests that the turnover of exam preparers will result in inconsistent qualicensee has institutionalized the process, and there does not appear to be induexam author training; and (5) inspecting the exams after the licenses have been dilemma if the exam is determined to be invalid.

4. NUREG-1262 Update - The industry representatives distributed a handout (Attachment 4) identifying t

NUREG-1262 that they would like to see incorporated into the frequently asked NRC’s operator licensing web site.- The NRC staff indicated that this activity was of lower priority than other operaand that it would review the industry’s proposal as resources permit.
5. Generic Fundamentals

Examination (GFE)Update

- The NRC staff indicated that it is planning to implement the 80-10-10 (bank, mquestion distribution on a trial basis starting in February 2001 and pointed out thresult in a slight increase in the average grades because the examinees have hhigher on the previously- validated, bank questions. To illustrate this point, the graphs (Attachment 5) summarizing the BWR and PWR average scores on bannew questions since October 1991.- The NRC staff indicated that it was considering the possibility of decreasing th50 questions and inquired whether the industry would have any concern with suindustry representatives agreed to poll their peers regarding the proposal.- The industry representatives raised a concern that the GFE examinations have difficult over time and that some of the questions are going beyond the intended They indicated that applicants are taking longer to complete the exams and thahave lengthened their generic fundamentals training programs or delayed their after they have had more systems training. The NRC staff noted that the post-ecomments and results have not been indicative of a problem and encouraged thsubmit examples of questions that they believe to be inappropriate to the NRC sThe industry agreed to confirm that this is a valid issue by collecting data and exsupport the anecdotal accounts. The industry also proposed that the NRC consneutral facility licensees (i.e., ones that will not have any applicants take a particvalidate new questions before they are used on an exam.

6. Reactivity

Manipulation RuleChange Update

- The industry representatives suggested that the wording of the regulation shorequire that the simulator core model reasonably represent the actual core at threactivity manipulations are performed rather than at the time of the operating teinclude this recommendation in their formal comments on the proposed rule.- The NRC staff indicated that it is tentatively planning to conduct a workshop at October 18, 2000, to discuss the rulemaking and the process for requesting exerequirement to perform five significant control manipulations on the reactor.

7. Requalification

SignificanceDetermination Process(SDP) Comments

- The NRC staff discussed and clarified several questions and comments that hsubmitted and are being resolved (e.g., the need to define issues and thresholdcrew failure criteria).- The NRC staff indicated that it was considering adding a 75% overall all pass SDP is consistent with the programmatic performance measures in ES-601 of N- The NRC staff and NEI discussed the possibility of implementing a performanclicensed operator requalification examination failures, but no consensus was rea