ML20024E022
| ML20024E022 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 09/07/1982 |
| From: | Kirby K Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Ward D Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20024E020 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-83-276 NUDOCS 8308090042 | |
| Download: ML20024E022 (49) | |
Text
7 1
jwauq Io, UNITED STATES c [+., *.., l,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RE ACTOR SAFEGUARDS
- 4,)3 I
WASHINGT ON, D. C. 2055s r*.
/
.. s September 7,1982 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Davic A. Ward, Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Factors FROM:
Kenneth 0. Kirby, ACRS Senior Fellow SUBJ ECi:
NUCLEAR POWER PLANT STAFFlhG AND PERFORMANCE INTRODUCTION in response to your request, I have investigated the level of staffing for Data nuclear power plants and possible correlation with successful operation.
on staf fing and trends in staf f size since 1964 have been examined, and com-parisons with projected staffing for recent operating license (OL) appl.icants ha ve Deen made.
Survey results providing the breakdown of the nuclear power plant staff by employer and occupational category and between on-site and of f-site locations nave also been investigated.
Possible correlations between
%staf f size and plant performance were examined based on four indicators: (1)
NRC SALP (Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance) ratin9s, (2) plant
.. capacity f actors (3) f orced outage rates, and (4) number of Licensee Event Reports (LERs).
s
SUMMARY
i Nuclear power industry staffing data snows continual increases in total employ-8 ment and average plant staf f size 'since the early 1970's. Total employment in gg N-yA nuclear reactor operation and maintenance has doubled about every four years.
58ld Copies of this report have been provided to the
{d=
Members of the Advisory Committee on Reactor
$8 Safeguards but the Committee as a group has not
- stm
. reviewed the document.
The technical content of.
this report should be considered to have neither ACRS approval nor disapproval.
i, 0-e
. Historical increases in staff size are illustrated by the data below, which also show projections by recent OL applicants and preliminary estimates for projecting future staf fing requirements developed from 1981 survey data.
Average Number of On-Site Utility Employees for Fully Operational Nuclear Power Stations Type of Station 1972 1976 1980 Recent Ols Future Projection Single-unit 75 108 167 261 329-354 Two-unit 190 248 427 409 620-634 ThrLe-unit 265 407 669 619 694-897 Wide variations in staff size exist throughout the industry, and variation in defining, allocating and reporting employment positions apparently exist also, so care is necessary in interpreting the accuracy and representative nature of staffing data.
Informal contacts with some recent applicants sug-gest even higher numbers or sketchy justification for reported values.
Investigations of 1981 survey results indicated that approximately two-thirds of the staff positions were at power plant sites and the remaining one-third were in off-site locations. About 15% of all positions were filled by con-tractors, and a similar fraction of positions were vacant. This significant number of vacancies may partially explain the wide differences between actual employment in 1980 and later projections.
Judging the influence of staff size on plant operation seems like an area with puzzling cause/effect or direct / indirect relationships, however, rather than dwelling on these aspects of the puzzle, it seems more informative to
.merely state a few observations. The following points are thus noted regard-ing staff size and.the four performance parameters investigated.
.3
0 L.
- f. (1) SALP Ratings Of' the fully operational nuclear power stations evalua,ted during 1979 and 1980, these relations were observed between the ratings and the 1979 staff size:
Among singic-unit stations, the five receiving "below average" ratings had the largest staffs of this group.
Two of the three two-unit stations rated "above average" had the smallest staff sizes stations in this group.
The average staff size per unit by rating categories were:
Above average-137, Average-166, Below average-203.
(2) Unit Capacity Factors Comparisons between 1980 capacity factors (maximum dependable capacity net) and staff size per unit for fully operational stations s!) owed:
- Of those units with above-mean capacity factors, 58% had below-mean staff size.
'Of those units with below-mean staff size, 71% bcd above mean capacity factor.
Linear regression analysis shows a negative correlation between capacity factor and staff size; a decrease of 1.4% in capacity factor was observed for an increase of 10 employees (correlation coefficient = -0.57).
(3)' Forced Outage Rates From 1980 forced outage rate and staff size data, the fo11owing is noted:
A large majority (75-90%) of the units with below-mean staff size have below-mean outage. rates.
(The range of values depends on whether Three Mile. Island is included).*
The outage of both units at THI has _a significant effect on average outage rates and a lesser effect on average capacity f actors. Not only-after the THI-2. accident, but also before, this station had the largest staff of all two-unit stations.
3 Of those units with above-mean outage rates, 70 to 80% have above-mean staff sizes.
Linear regression analysis is sensitive to the few high outages rate cases, especially TMI, but regardless of whether these few are considered or not, a positive correlation between forced outage rate and staff size results.
l (4) Licensee Event Reports Examining the total number of LERs per unit for 1979 and 1980 for fully operational stations and comparing the findings with the 1980 on-site staff level (utility employees only) yielded the following:
Of the units with below the mean number of LERs, 61% had below-mean staff size; of those with above the mean number, 71% had above-mean staff size.
Of the units with below-mean staff size, 81% had below the mean number of LERs.
Linear regression analysis shows a positive correlation between number of LERs and staff size; for all units examined an increase of approximately 6 LERs during the two-year period per increase of 10 employees was observed (correlation coefficient = -0.58);
for fully operational two-unit stations an increase of about 9 LERs per unit with an increase of 10 employees per unit was observed (correlation coefficient = 0.79).
Lengthy discussions qualifying the nature of staffing / performance relations are possible and, indeed, some counterpoints can be made.
Identifying para-meters that are indicators of safe and reliable performance or that further define successful performance is an area of controversy itself. However, I-s would conclude from this study that large staff sizes are not necessary for j
good performance.
1
... ~
DISCUSSION Staffing and Performance Data To pull together data on nuclear power plant staffing, contacts were made with the NRC Staff, the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO), the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), the U.S. Department of Energy (D0E) and the Oak Ridge Associated Universities (0RAU).
No NRC data base exists except what one can obtain from Safety Analysis Reports (SARs) and Safety Evaluation l
Reports (SERs). The other contacts noted above had conducted studies and had data of varying availability and applicability to this study.
00E has conducted or supported several studies on staffing for nucicar power
. plants as well as the nuclear industry in general (see Refs.1-6). DOE pro-vides annual reports on thermal-electric plant construction cost and produc-tion expenses, a'nd these reports include nuclear plants and related staffing (Refs. 7, 8). From these reports, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers compiled staffing data for 1964-1978 (Ref. 9). Adding the remaining available results (Refs. 7, 8,10), a data base through 1980 was developed for this study. Tables 1, 2 and 3 present the data. The staffing data tabulated represents the " average number of employees" associated with the power plant operation as defined in the DOE request for data (Ref.11).
The number reported is interpreted to be the total number of equivalent full-time, on-site employees directly assignable to the particular power station. With only the one value reported per station per year, no further breakdown was possible, but the data base was considered adequate for general trends.
Inspection of the data showed some anomalies, but spot checks with FSARs and NRC project managers tended to support the general validity, and trends observed from this data should be reasonably representative.
o
. IhP0 and EEI have conducted manpower surveys and projections for the nuclear industry (Refs. 4,12), but detailed plant-by-plant data is considered somewhat proprietary.
INPO contacts implied that more detailed data from their 1981 survey might be supplied if formally requested by the ACRS and released by participating activities (Ref.13). A 1982 survey has just been completed and results should be published this fall -(Ref.14).
The 1981 survey conducted by INPO was performed with the assistance of DOE and ORAU, and results were presented to Congress in relation to Public Law 96-567, the " Nuclear Safety Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1980."
(ACRS/ DOE cooperation in the overall matter and DOE results provided to Congress are noted in Ref.15.) ORAU assisted in the analysis of the staffing data and has published preliminary results (Ref. 6). Some updated results have been obtained and a final report should be available this fall (Ref. 16). Although this survey addresses only a snapshot in time, employment as of March 1981, the various breakdowns available in the Working Paper (Ref. 6) are of interest to this study. Selected material from that paper have thus been attached as Appendix A to this paper, and the results and further analysis of that data are incorporated here as appropriate.
To complement the historical staffing data, projections of staffing levels by recent OL applicants have been compiled. Table 4 presents staffing data for those applicants reviewed by the ACRS from July 1980 to June 1982. The
. staffing data was obtained primarily from SERs with some information taken from ACRS meeting materials. The current accuracy of this data is somewhat suspect, and off-site staff levels were seldom reported in a clear manner.
'I
\\t Informal contacts with a few applicants noted either significantly higher values or sketchy justification for reported staffing. Average on-site staff sizes for new Ols were noted in the Summary section; two-and three-units station averages were comparable to the 1980 observations, but single-unit
' station averages are significantly higher.
Included with the staffing data provided in Tables 1-3 are SALP ratings, unit capacity factors and forced outage rates. These parameters are included as indicators of plant performance. The number of LERs per plant has also been examined as a performance indicator, and data is tabulated later in this report. The identification of parameters that are representative of " success-ful" plant performance is a controversial topic itself, however, these four factors considered individually or in combination were considered adequate for present purposes. The SALP ratings were taken from evaluations conducted from 1/1/79 to 12/31/80 and are reported in Ref.17. Capacity ~ factor and forced out' age data are. for the year 1980 and cumulative through 1980 taken from the " Grey Book" (Ref.18). The NRC Staff, Office of Analysis and Evaluation of Operational Data, performed an LER search for data used in this s tudy.
General Trends in Staff Size A cursory look at the tabulated. staffing data shows large increases over the noted time period. To more carefully evaluate this trend, it was necessary to partition the data into logical groups. The most logical. grouping seemed to be by the type of. station according to the number of units per station.
i.
i I
Table 5 presents an illustration of the number of operating nuclear plants by I
Estimates of association with single-unit, two-unit and three-unit stations.
These estimates are based average staff size per station are also included.
on all the units operating (and reporting data), but since some multi-unit stations may have only one unit operating and are staffing up for future operation of more units, this basis would tend to yield over-estimates of Table 6 presents a reevaluaEfon of average staff size considering staffing.
only fully operational stations (i.e., limited to data with all units / station There averages should provide a more realistic estimate of staff operating).
size for ope' rating stations, but they are based on a smaller data base than Table 5. - Table 6 also illustrates the distribution of staff size per unit and gives an indication of the ranges of staff sizes among those reporting Figure 1 further illustrates the average staff sizes for the different data.
types of stations ove-the entire time period of the data base, with the spread in size illustrated by bars indicatinc + one standt.rd deviation about the mean.
Tables 1-3 show that essentially every operating plant has increased its staff. size every year of operation; and in any given year the staff for new plants is generally larger than the afterage. Figure 1 then illustrates the increase in average staff size.
In the early 1970's, most of the installed capacity-was in single-unit stations, and staff size were mostly below 100 In the mid-to-latter 1970's, two-unit stations without wide variation.
became prevalent and most' of the installed capacity and personnel were
e v
.g.
associated with these' stations. A wide variation in staff size for single-and two-unit stations also existed during this time period. A three-unit station with all units operating has been in existence since 1971, but to the current time no more' than three such stations (all units operating) have operated at the same time.
Including new applicants, only five three-unit stations are presently _likely. Staffing at-three-unit stations has also shown large increases, but many tend to be special cases (one ~ unit is quite dissimilar in design or operational status).
Staff sizes appear to be continuing to increase significantly and wide variations still seem prevalent. Average staff sizes tabulated -in the preceding Summary section showed an increase of more than a factor of two from 1972 to 1980 for all types of stations. More recent surveys and/or projections by recent applicants suggest that the near term rate of increase
'may even be higher. To obtain a clearer basis for understanding staffing requirements and related increases, the following section discusses staff break down.
General Breakdown of Staff It would seem appropriate that one should be familiar with the composition of l
the staff associated with a nuclear power plant in order to understand -
staffing needs in relation to staff size and, possibly, plant performance.
p Therefore,'it was ~ felt worthwhile to devote 'some discussion to this' topic.
The 1981 INPO sur'vey (Ref. 4) and the related ORAU analysis (Ref. 6) provide l
a convenient basis ~for this discussion. Although the results are. for only -a Y
y-L-~
. point in time, some inferences on historical and future aspects of staffing are possible.
The reader is referred to Appendix A for selected excerpts from Ref. 6.
INPO conducted a survey of occupational employment in the nuclear power industry in the spring of 1981 and his done so again in 1982. The 1982 data is not available at this time, but ORAll4 bas performed analyses and reported preliminary results from the 1981 survey. Of the 54,400 approved employment positions in the nuclear power industry as of March 1981, approximately two-thirds were at power plant units and the remaining one-third were in of f-site locations. Of these positions the breakdawn by employer was as follows:
On-site Off-site Utility employees 69%
77%
Contractor positions 15%
13%
Holding company
<1%
1%
iltility vacancies 15%
9%
TO'OT-100%'
Survey results were also broken down by occupational category and Table 7 provides a summary; breakdown by employee and on-site /off-site location are included. Of the single specific catego' ries noted in on-site positions,.the largest occupational group was technicia'ns (19.1%); if all operators, licensed and non-licensed, were considered as a single group, they would De next largest (16.9%). Skilled craft workers (16.1%) and engineers and profes-
. sionals (14.4%) were the next largest on-site occupational ' groups.. In
-off-site positions, almost half are engineers and professionals (48.6%), ~with technicians (17.5%) and clerical workers (11.5%) next in order of staff t.:
f.
l level. tiost of these positions are filled by utility employees, but of the on-site skilled craf t positions,18.4% are filled by contractors and 11.4%
of the technician positions are filled by contractors. Of the off-site positions, contractors fill 21.4% of the technician positions and 13.8% of the engineering and professional positions. Contractors also filled signiff-cant amoun.ts of the "other" positions, on-site and off-site.
It is also interesting to note that 15.3% of the total on-site positions and 9.0% of the off-site positions were vacant.
Additional analysis of the survey data was performed by ORAU to estimate the mean number of positions required to staff a plant. These estimates were developed as a basis for projecting future (1991) staffing requirements and were apparently based on a selected subset of the survey data. Table 8 summarizes the reported mean number of on-site positions by occupation esti-mated for the various types of stations. These data are for all employees and no vacancies. The mean total on-site staff requirements for a single-unit station was estimated as 422, for a two-unit station-755, and for a three-unit station-826.
(Recalling the proportions noted earlier, 84% of these values would yield an estimate of the utility on-s'ite positions). These values differ from earlier preliminary estimates from other subsets of the survey, which estimated on-site staff level as 356 for a single-unit station and 782 for a two-unit station with one control room (Ref.19).
- Still other estima'tes, yet to be reported, supplied by ORAU (Ref.16) note on-site staff levels of 392 for a single-unit station,.738 for a two-unit L:-
1 a
. station, and 1068 for a three-unit station.* Off-site staf fing was also estimated to require 103 employees per unit in operation, 76 employees per unit to be completed within three years, and 41 employees per unit to be completed beyond that time. For fully operational stations, these latter estimates would yield a total staff complement, on-site and off-site for all employers, of 495 for a single-unit station, 994 for a two-unit station, and 1377 for. a three-unit station. Applying the same employer breakdown noted above, the number of total utility positions would be expected to be about 418, 797, and 1163 for the various station types, respectively. On-site utility positions would be estimated as 329, 620 and 897, respectively.
Statistics reported in the ORAU study, as well as general, observations and statistics calculated from the DOE annual data, pointed out large plant-to-plant variations in staff size. These variations are not readily explained by characteristics such as type of reactor, operating capacity, number of units or number of control rooms. Average staff size data must then be used with some caution or appreciation for the uncertainty. The INP0/0RAU data for projecting plant staff size tend to be larger than the 1980 00E data and the recent OL projections, often by a substantial amount. This may be partially due to the exclusion of some plants in the 1980 data base from the
.INP0/0RAU studies that were not considered representative of future plants.
One would think that the averages for recent OLs would be reasonably represen-tative though.
However, previous comments have noted the sketchy _ nature and These estimates are-for 1000 MWe units; ORAU estimates are based on multiple variable regression analysis that shows a small staff size-dependency on plant capacity.
i
. e. --
. ~ increases probable for these data. The INP0/0RAU data also tena to suggest that the DOE annual data, particularly for 1980, may not be representative for_ projecting' staffing requirements, because altnough the data may report actual employment, a significant fraction of vacancies may exist.
So, although one is tempted to believe that the INP0/0RAU estimates are hign, staff sizes' appear to _ be moving toward those valbis.
Staff Size and Plant Performance In the preceding discussion, it was noted that wide variations exist in nuclear power station staffing levels and that staffing patterns are not fully explained by fundamental characteristics such as capacity or number of units.
It is more unlikely that performance patterns would be fully explained by staffing levels, although it would be valuable to identify any noteworthy trends.
The approach for assessing tne possible relationships between staff size and plant performance in this study attempts to be straightforward.
It does not address indirect influence or cause/effect questions, which admittedly might.be -involved, but rather it inspects performance and staffing data for
~
t rends. Four performance indicators, (1) SALP ratings, (2) unit capacity factors.(3) forced outage rates, and (4) number'of LERs, were selected' for
- i nvesti gation.
Qualitative trends with staff size were examined, and simple quantitative analyses '(including linear regression) were performed. _These investi'gations were not felt ' adequate to assess specific ways that staffing
- may affect performance or to identify an optiral staff size, out tne results would be expected.to help address the question "Are ~ 1arge staffs necessary for-
. safe.and reliable operation?"
l j
. Investigations were limited to on-site, utility employees only at fully opera-tional nucitar power stations (all units per station operating). Applicable staffing and performance data are. contained in Tables 1, 2 and 3; LER data is given in Table 9.
SALP Ratings. The first performance data investigated were SALP ratings.
SALP is an integrated NRC Staff effort to collect observations and evaluate licensee performance on approximately an annual basis.
Licensee performance is rated as either above average, average or below average
- A brief summary of the SALP process and the ratings used for this study are reported in Ref.
17.
These SALP evaluations were perforred from 1/1/79 to 12/31/80.
For single-unit, operating nuclear power stations, Figure 2 illustrates 1979 staffing level as a function of station OL year with the SALP rating (1979/1980) indicated for each station.
(The numbers witnin the symbols refer to the station number in Table 1.) The five stations rated below average are noted to be the five with the largest staff sizes of this group.
Tne stations rated above average, however, nave significantly smaller plant staffs. Figure 3 presents similar data for two-unit and three-unit stations.
Tne extreme association of below average rating with lar'ge staff size is not present, but two of the three two-unit stations rated above average nave the smallest sizes of this group.
Figures 2 and 3 also appear to indicate a correlation between staff size and f.
l OL years.
To investigate this further, Figure 4 presents the approximate Tnis approach is no longer utilized in the SALP process.
Evaluations-are conducted in separate functional categories and no overall rating is provided.
. staff size at OL year as a function of OL year.
This illustrates the increase
' in staf f size for new applicants as time progresses, and Figures 2 and 3 tend
-to indicate that this influence continues to the extent that at a given time newer plants tend to have larger staffs than older plants.
Some of the reasons for this trend are ob :ous and touched upon in tne Conclusions section.
Conparisons among these same figures also tend to show Inat the relation between SALP ratings and staff size is less at the OL year than at the time of rating.
Additional analysis of the SALP ratings and staff size were performed to determine the average staff size according to the rating categories. Results for fully operational stations are presented below:
Average 1979 Staff Sizes for SALP Rating Categories Above Average Average Below Average No. of Single-unit stations 4-10 5
Mean staff (+ one std. dev.)
105 + 47 125 + 28 234 + 29 No. of Two-unit stations 3
6 4
Mean staff 239 + 141 398 + 91 362 + 49 No. of Three-unit stations 1
0 1
Mean staff.
643 626 Total no. of units 13 22 Hean staff / unit 137 + 65 166 + 52 203 + 32 Although the variation in mean staf f may af fect the confidence in predicting
~
trends..these data appear to suggest a correlation of poorer ratings witn
~
increasing staff size.
e Capacity Factors. The next performance indicator investigated for possible correlation with staff size was unit capacity factor (maximum dependable capacity net). Average capacity factors for 1980 and cumulative capacity factors through 1980 are presentea in Tables 1-3; Figure 5 illustrates the annual average capacity factor and on-site utility staff size for 1980 for fully operational nuclear power stations.
Capacity factor data are plotted as a function of staff size per unit, so a separate point is provided for each unit of a multi-unit station assuming the staff is equally dividad among the station units.
The data illustrates a wide variation in performance.
For the stations included, the mean capacity factor is 56.8% with a standard deviation of 19.5%. The industry average for 1980, including those operating units of multi-unit stations yet to be fully completed was 57.6% (Ref.18).
Figu re 5 also shows a linear regression line for the wnole population of data witn a slope of -0.14 (decrease of 1.4% in capacity factor for an increase of 10 employees) with a correlation coefficient of -0.57.
Inspection of tne data would tend to indicate that the single-unit data and two-unit' data correlate slightly differently witn staf f size.
Indeed, the two-unit data appears more strongly related to staff size and a regression l{ae with a slope of -0.22 is estimated (correlation-coefficient -0.79).
This stronger trend is primarily -
due to a few two-unit stations with small staff and high capacity factor -
combined with the large TMI staff for two shut-down units.
Further analysis of capacity factor data involved simply examining tne frac-tion of plants 'in the four quadrants about the mean-capacity-factor, mean-staff-size centroid.
Of the total number'of units incluaed, 35'; were above the mean
r
. capacity factor and below the nean size; about 26% each were in the above-mean capacity factor, above-mean stat f and below-mean capacity factor, above-mean staff quadrants; about 14% of the units were below mean capacity factor and below mean staff size. Carrying this type analysis further, 587, of those units witn above-mean capacity factor have below-mean staff size.
Of those
_ units with below-mean staf f size, 71% have aDove-mean capacity factor.
These data thus suggest a trend of inproved performance for tne smaller staff sizes..
Forced Outage Rates. Forced outage rate data was also investigated as a performance indicator for possible correlation with staff size.
Average forced outage rates for 1980 and cumulative forced outage rates througn 1980 are presented in Tables 1-3.
Figure 6 illustrates the average forced outage rates and-on-site utility staf f size. Each unit of fully' operational multi-unit stations is again shown separately assuming equal division of the station staff.
For the units ' included in Figure 6, tne average forced outage rate is 14.9%.
Illustrative of the wide variation of the data, the standard deviation is 22.6%. The industry average forced outage rate for 1980 was 11.5%; this average was based on 67. operating units, whereas tne data of Figure 6 include 43 units related.to fully operational stations (and those witn reported staff size)only. Considering all those units illustrated, a positive correlation between forced outage rate and staff size seems to exist. Analysis of the data does yield a positive correlation with a slope of 0.15 (1.5% increase in l
outage; rate pe'r= 10 additional employees); the correlation coefficient is f
0.53.
a t
i i
e 18 -
As witn the capacity factor data, forced outage rate trends for two-unit stations seem to be stronger than for single-unit stations. Analyzing tne two-unit stations separately shows a slope of 0.27 with a correlation co-ef ficient of 0.81, thus confirming the stronger correlation.
Single-unit stations alone then appear to have little correlation between forced outage rate and staff size.
The few high outage rate cases strongly affect trends here, more so than the related ef fect on capacity factors.
The TMI units have a particularly strong effect on trends for two-unit stations, but even if these units are omitted a positive correlation remains (slope, 0.086; correlation coefficient. 0.59).
The effect of THI on mean parameters of tne whole population is noticeable, but there still remain some indications of poorer performance with staff size. Of those units with above-mean outage rates, 70% have above-mean staff size if TMI is omitted or 80% have above-mean staff size if TMI is inclu ded.
If one examines those units with below-mean staff size, 75% have below-mean outage rates not considering TMI and 90% have below-mean outage-rates if TM1 data is included.
Numb'er of LERs. ' Counting LERs to arrive at an indication of nuclear power plant performance is probably the most controversial of the performance indicators examined in this study. However, since this study is primarily based on a collection of observations, and since a lot of observations'and
~ interpretations, whether correct or not, are based on LER' studies, it seems of sufficient applicability and interest to include here.
. Table 9 presents a summary of the number of LERs for 1979 plus 1980 for each of the operating nuclear power units considered in this study.
(Tnesame units-are presented using the same numerical identifies as in Tables 1-3).
For the fully operational stations, Figure 7 illustrates the LER data as a function of staff size per unit.
(THI units have not been included)..
Although there is an obvious spread to the data, a trend of increasing LERs with increasing staff size seems to exist. As shown on the figure, linear regression.does reveal a positive correlation and yields a line with a slope of 0.55 (about 6 additional LERs over the two-year period per 10 additional employees) with a' correlation coef ficient of 0.58.
Investigating the possible difference in correlation by single-unit and two-unit stations again snows the two-unit stations to have a stronger relation. Regression analysis yields a slope for two-unit stations tnat is about a factor of three higher tnan that for single-unit stations (0.93 means 0.33) with a much better correlation coefficient (0.79 versus U.49).
The same analysis shows that for the two-year period the average numoer of LERs.'per unit for two-unit stations is larger than that for a single-unit station (117 versus 82). The average number per unit of thos,e included in Fisure 2 is 94; the average number of LERs during the two-year period for all units that were'in operation at the beginning of the period (1979; 67 units) is 96 with a standard deviation of 61.
Further analysis of the relation between number of 'LERs and staff size as L
-illustrated in Figure 2 revealed that of the units with below the mean.
j.
. number of LERs,l61; had a staf f size that was below the mean. Of tnose
units with above the nean number of LERs, 71% had above-mean staf t size.
For those units with staf fing below tne mean value, 81% nad below tne mean number of LERs.
Such observations furtner illustrate tne correlation of increased number of LERs witn increased staff size.
Conclusions and Recommendations Observations presented in tne previous section tend to snow tnat tnere are carrelations between staff size and plant performance for the indicators investigated.
Eacn correlation tends to suggest tne association of better-tnan-average performance with sm' aller-tnan-average staff size and/or poorer performance witn larger staff size.
Individual correlations may not be too strong, but the common trend is reinforced througn repetition.
It thus seems tnat smaller staff sizes are better and that curren't trends towards larger staf fs are headed in the wrong direction.
Before this can be force-fully stated, nowever, other conclusions from this study snould be noted and a few precautions should be injected before a fair net conclusion is put-forth. Recommendations f or ACRS and NRC Staff action are also incorporated in the-following discussion.
Two fundarental conclusions regarding staffing levels alone are pointed out by tnis study:
(1) Staff sizes have Deen ano Jpparently -Will Contir.Ue increasing witn time; (2) Wide pla'nt-to-plant variations in staff size existed and continue to exist.
These aspects exist independer>t of. plant performance, and until tne basic reasons for the increases &nd variations can be better explained, tne specific
- influences on performance will remain clouded.
The reasons for some increases may of ten be felt to be perfectly obvious, but the existence of large varia-tions of ten challenges the seemingly obvious reasons.
For example: design cnanges, regulatory requirements (whetner. design related or not) and increased plant capacity are often identified as basic reasons for increased staffing.
While it seems true that designs with nore instrumentation would require more people to monitor and naintain tnein, and even more for the added surveillance requi.'ements, the variation in the number of staf f originally addressing or added to address this area suggests a very uncertain basis for how many people are necessary in the first ploce.
Large plant capacity is tacitly translated to "large" plant and large staff.
Indeed, average plant capacity has been increasing with time and in a given yeir there.is a trend to have more people for more megawatts.
However, for a wide ranbe in capacity many plants nave quite similar staf t sizes, and also, for a ratner narrow range of capacity, variations of over a factor of two in staf f size exist.
So, although increases have occurred because there seems to De more to do, the variations existing in staffing indicate basic differences in establishing now many people it takes to do something in the first place.
If it seems that the NRC Staff is doing anything to encourage a particular level of staffing, then the basis for such encouragement should be sound.
To support such, it is thus recommended that the ACRS suggest tnat the NRC Staff direct some of their ef forts associated with job and task analysis toward staf fing level determinations.
It is further recommended tnat such efforts incorporate industry surveys performed by INP0 in 1981 and 1982 in a manner L.
. that attempts to relate minimum staf fing requirements, average levels 'and variations to'tne job and task analysis, it may also be appropriate to consider reqacsting more specific staffing data from licensees and applicants, including' of f-site staf fing data.
From tne observation and simple analyses presented here, there does seem to be
~
a correlation between staff size and plant performance.
However, variations exist in this analysis too, and the perforh.ance indicators utilized may be limited in tneir applicability.
One is generally cautioned against the use of SALP evaluations and LERs to rank plants or tneir performance - yet tney are probably used more of ten for that than anything else, it is generally accepted that the more people you nave to look for things, the more tnings you will find. Tnis aspect and tne variation in reporting rigor and technical specifi-cations snould be remembered when using LERS.
If one removes a few outliers in the capacity factor and forced outage rate data, correlations witn that data may yield null results.
Perhaps additional parameters snould be included in the assessment also and it may be worth NRC Staff efforts to consciously.
identify. such indicators in the process of their general management competence ef forts. :In spite of these precautiops and tne work' that nay remain to be done however.. it.cannot be disputed that there are some nuclear power plants tnat have good performance records by any reasonable measure and tney have-a relatively small staf f.
One must conclude then that a large staff is not a necessity for good performar.ce.
t-
es l
. References 1.
" Personnel Supply and Demand Issues in tne Nuclear Power Industry,"
Final Report of the Nuclear Nanpower Study Committee, Assembly of Engineering, National Research Council, DOE /NE-0026,1981.
2.
"A Study of the Adequacy of Personnel for the U.S. Nuclear Program,"
Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE /ER-0111, November 1981.
3.
" Energy Manpower Factbook,1981," Office of Energy Research, U.S.
Department of Energy, DUE/IR/06647-1, December 1981.
4.
"A Survey of Occupational Employment and Training in the Nuclear Power Industry," Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, Manpower Studies Series, Report No. 1, September 1981.
5.
Joe G. Baker and Kathryn Oslen, " Occupational Employment in Nuclear-Related Activities,1981" Oak Ridge Associated Universities, ORAU-197, April 1982.
6.
Ruth C. Johnson, " Occupational Employment in Nuclear Power Utilities,"
(Working Paper), Oak Ridge Associated Universities,' August 1981.
7.
" Steam-Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Expenses -
1978," Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE /EIA-0033(78), December 1980.
8.
" Thermal-Electric Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Expenses-1979," Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE /EIA--323(79), May 1982.
9.
" Utility Department Nuclear Guide, Nuclear Station Personnel, Average Number and Bargaining Unit Ratios," Supporting Document 4, International Brotnerhood of Electrical Workers, (undated).
10.
" Nuclear Plant Construction Cost and Annual Production Expenses-1980,"
Private correspondence, L. Prete, U.S. Department of Energy,' June 12, 1982.
11.
"FERC Form No.1: ' Annual Report ' of Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others (Class A and Class 8)" Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, FERC Form No.1 (Revised 12-81).
12.
" Nuclear Plant Staffing Survey," Edison Electric Institute, May 1980.
(Proprietary information, not available).
n.
L 4 ^.
i
. r 24 -
' References (con't)
- 13.-
Private communications, R. Thomas, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations,
,JuneL4 1982.
14.
- Private ~ communications, K. Elsea, Institute of Nuclear Power Operations,
- August _ 13,' 1982.
15.
' Letter-from Jerry D. Grif fith, U.S. Department of Energy to J. Carson Hark, Chairman, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, April,12,1982.
16.. - Private communications, Ruth Johnson, Oak Ridge Associated Universitf es,_
Augu st 10, 1982.
17.-
"NRC Licensee Assessments," Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance Review Group, U.S.- Nuclear _ Regulatory Commission, NUREG-0834, August 1981.
18.
" Licensed Operating Reactors, Status Summary Report," U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Commission, NUREG-0020, Vol. 5, No.1, January 1981.-
19.
" Occupational Employment' in Nuclear Power Activities - Preliminary Report,"
. Labor and Policy Studies Program, Oak' Ridge ' Associated Universities.
-June 25, 1981.
20.
" Nuclear Power '82," Southern Science. Applications, Inc. - (undated).
cc: ACRS Members -
ACRS Technical Staff
'ACRS Fellows 1
?
I m
- G
+'l
.m
_m
~
' 4., +
3 s
m,
+
1.
9
,1
-Q si si ui x s.m s s.
a at s h
~
~, -,
e I dt s V R A h!m2 El
,Ikdb b
s s
s a
R *w D' s i
J -i -
w,y
=
ni e a
s
~~
s s
I k"
a slw s ad y 4 4 as ss R, a u s%
~
s,
,R eJ a 9 4 41 9 t"
t l
y g-
]
@ 4.k i
e T s ti d %! !. % ? 4 -l Il d "e! E a! 9E I
' si mt.,
-i ot s' u of tsi = ei si e, u: g
- _y e. e ei a,
hs g
wi g n e
,e e
s 3
-y
- l "Eli
{ Ql R.l, %l %'l 4
+n! '
!c o
.l N k o mj k>l Ek %
o R,
s e-e C
f-i g9 A
R E
. kj k E T
el l
s.
-c N,
N h
S q e o
g D$
0-e to s..
- s.,o s.
w n
~
h d*p
~,
~
e.
~
<D j s
o w
m s
q g,
fS k
i g
dattyy I
j I
e,, a t ai s
i i
y
,1.'.',
J.
Q t' s) N $ s N s.,, s! < N 't,-lt -C;WNs.'9]:;4
.I w si
%! ~i QQ kl
- sj
'o t
s
-g I
4 g
-i e 4
c: =i :i -
- +. = et
'tNs,s.lq@<xm'ania.:$j]?',$tt<.t.'<g44 41 s' il +:
a s'.itl i,\\ s I
- QQ $ hi is'
~.
q sN<
t J
j um a
i
~=
m.e::
e i
i i
i e
i i
i s. wi m uj u N
l m' % %
=
u A
iw
=
.I u
% u w
I
% ml i
i i
g%R4h 4
- R d A bI +! N W h
- ! A ji g ih k
n v, q q -i m v
=
s v
a ys s
5
~4 $
,.N,h ! ? ?.h". 5 55 ?? ? ?l.N ?
.4 i
i i
i i
s x
e j
S4Y N
!j I
_N h
o!
4.k J
g 4Dit i e ij i.i4 W14 6 !MJ i3,j-l q! Mi st ; u. %% M s t: H e % d <Rs D@T 4 d: ! 4 $ 4. 5 4 5 -t' ll >{ b d tt & P.0: f1-i;.J'? +
5 if
-f 4.3 G d oc f_ f cf. \\f. if
i
~ ',l *j uj l
+l
- l =l cl tj' j ' tj ejt' aj a (
~
-,. ~ _. _ _. _.,
4 4 d hl R,._l M 'I 4i h i! bwi%
k CI.C 8,' k t wl $
w in.
s m
t t
wm s o
4 ie a n tl l, r. gJ' oJw R, W a x '4 2 mlm e-gR Y n
<3 4
a "e,2, e sc n,i.e,
-+ a. 1 a, 3, y t' S d; a.l. W,,, w-s m m
s~
s e
s dd~ q,! @O_
(.t d d.,t, sWh
,R d'. c;! h,l, R.,! yw.
N..I Ql 8 R
M>
m w
s,
d m: CW J
j o
- ! t. 4 y
) I,4, Ri ml.,.
cJ *
~
, 4, tw t'
e R 4 4i t L3
=
t!:.s,I t 4,
t,'. ol d d,,d a~:
R,,;
d, 4 h t
s 4, ~i k 'g.
s d
Ri a,gl
$ hl b-Q! C' t,!
9 4
s, i
y% $
B w; mi m t
h bl i,
R, ;r Tl t! ol d
-J 9
- l 9,
+P s
W ol
%,3 4
m 8
8 T
SJ 4
N D E
'3 -
~
3 J
a 4
E' k d
S Q
4-
.d 'd.R l
4 o
i
%es a
e.w Q
to l
l t
l I
i X
l m
h l
a a
E I
o@d,,*,'d 4S *'jtt M e;!g M'tO e O'i;s,s,,
t V
.s slsws s Js.
- s., s. si
'- i i,
%. v s-dt ari;ie t.%s,s.s.,g !; tl te l.* i.
g s
8; of N+=i 1 = <. w s -.
y
)'
g t
k l::
t!
! ndiblxd Ns'"y.:; A t! q w.; y! a A%, ra,s! b,s,'
3!
3
$ Nd?d34!ht s
s.
s'
' ' s.'
w 9
.s 4, b.'
R
+
ed.pt C!s t;:::: ti v s.w w.
x q
s 3
1 l
l-jd.
.I.
s4
=J l
j l
, "j " *j @ g 3u 33 4i u "
v
}
$1=u 9 %, *
[
$ f f k k I d I d ii; 5 d i!!! D ! d I bid $ $ $$
i
=
a nu m ow n x e e w] R ? s ?
F.R F M R ? ? ? 1 R Z
.h k.k in i'o$.EIl tBiRA?
.R 4
<i
- ~L i
i s &l.- +.
i d
1 di g
L, Q, e L;
t'. E!' 10.1 "!
- 7! #
id 3
! d'v 4
13c 6
li I. E ',; '$
' << L c*14 n."I y 2 o? d 9 g! O "&-3'2 d.V<1-f ' O'!*
114}J.t.')3 y ed O 'e% fj h, ~'^31
-~
al li.$.i!
1
- ! it - SiJ'fis J
'i!
J ' ;ii e = 1 $ f
,. )w e u k
I
, L..
k kl g! } w 'w m'I'b:
YI If 5h 4
w 2
e u u. u l'-
Il Q! I D.
! t! t D. 4 i
1 l
i i.
1 i
~~.
b tl, C
4
- d 3l W
t~l 4-4
+
w w
s mi mi
+1 I
h 4l
~M, 6 d
Y s
10 (t
w n
s 4,
mi mi n
nj L'
R
+
o
+
o
~
q gB 4
8l
. si C
4 w
4
,n
+
kl wi a
o of W
g 4^%
'i t
w s
4;
%I a
a
- l al
'Q' t
k 4
.}
4 9,
w mi w
s b!
t, i
h W
tl W
bl a
n w
v.
4 4
s 5
QI I
I o
E m
v b
m l
S m
%s -
g $5 k
k I
k k
8 En bl a
gi
~a L
~
1 2
3-W 4
a, t
,4 2
g s
s 2
a g
,O si I
f(.
. r> q '
t
%l W
l, I,
e
.It O!
I k
5 I
1 I
g 4D w
~
~
E E
8 l.
I i
3 c
Nd Yb d
- d. Ot!t Ode i>t hd kw D
'I r
f
=o g *. lI w+ i
- s'i e3,2i e
3
,w s s.s.
s e e n.. y s i
=;:
1 i-s m
p S
II
!%4
!S A
!k Nl E.'
a ji h..d tl s
4
, ' -.}. m~ ji p. mi-
>.i,
- w.
in,,'
p.
t 4
e r
u.i'
'u S
' ta m V
a e i
3 iii w
w i
e e
I e
w WD 4Nl.
y
$ dla l ara $if$
N I
4
'E 01;t t
g 2
g e
e :; = i =p
, =y 3
p-l-
{
l
.P l
t :n.rnanl-m z u.i. a
,. :m-.- r:.d'x l l2 22l.x.m..
f Q
- .p-,
g
- - i-ii i
o.
y m
p=
D l mr; i.SM,l l
ni I.
i
.mi m.
2 i $. Fi5?l$?."
$.lI
!% D IT i.i s
3 I
s.
q
- n %s
[, ail' E! i G
4 i 's.,i Pe.,i 'w4,i !. 's,
!, q
!? 4.
i,G T
i
- I q a
.,1 si, i u.
.2 TI ' p d limk h.)
k 3 lA 4
)
' his ;'-E.$ 'id i !!
i 4T
- t.-
u, a
R.e
- W i n.
i.'
te-i.5
,.s,
- ~,
.m, e-iv
-l, l
,k I
l 8
I l
g i
i e
'd'
[,.
Explanatory Notes for Tables 1, 2, 3 Staffing and Performance Data for Operating Nuclear Power Stations Table Heading Explanation
- 1.
Station (units)-
Nuclear power station name and/or. unit designation 2.
OL Yr.
Year operating license received (Ref. 20)
J3.
MWe Unit electrical capacity in megawatts (")
4 SALP Rating from Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (Ref 17)_ :
A=Above' average B= Average C=Below average
-5.
1980 Cap. Fact. / Yr.
Unit capacity factor for 1980 1980 Cap. Fact. / Cum.
Cumulative unit capacity factor through 1980 (both are for maxixum dependable capacity net, Ref.18) 6.
1980 F.O.R. / Yr.
Forced outage rats for.1980 1980 F.0.R. / Cum.
Cumulative forced outage rate through 1980. (Ref.18) 7.
Average Number of On-Number of utility employees directly Site Station Employees assignable to the on-site plant staff by Year:
(Refs.7-11)
.8.
NR-'or Staffing data not reported m
1 9
Aiecfed Jfaft.V
~
AcR3
%.4-SkN 0+her SkR Tilat C,.
Is
- i. Summ er
'13 900
' 3/s1 '51l
~
- 4+
a Ferwi 2
'72 tog 3 s
alst
'B3 935 357 490 i.5..
a,..a.u.r-fi..i a i
- 3..S~/ lore lLt p1
'73 96 5
/o/91
'S3 a9L 103-29A 3's'-If1-01 c-r <.fc acears 4'-
+. It}a }erford3
'7+
na,s s
si21 s3 )
a99 so 321 C. k1/o// [ reel'
'97 stSo B
C/82 'M b ABO
~ l%
~422 Ms.a:. cue. sk& Sc r.
f'Nffffj I. Cecyaoya}; / + 2
'70 lI$6.,
S E 1/80'80.91 l 19C
~
2.Ia[al/e 0anhHA
'93 1078.
S
$ 4/91'81,ss h 339 c giaekoxita /+2
'93 *foSo, 3
l O/91'81,93 SSA 3p9 ggi 3.Sa.
hranIhttl! /+A
'94 I)[0, S
fo/gt
'61,-
338 v a % acfure'd-
+.
j
- "# ' * ** ' *W C' G fru cie 2
'99 6/0 B
lll9[ '83 l
+374
- 4. 8a//atsay /fl
'76 $%
3
///st '83,- !
SW 60 - AM 4 6-sqB I.'d.'oI+Y a.T.A'.#
- 7. banent 2 hah //2 '9f' ilso.
S
' 11 / 9 1'64.96* l
. SA 5 M
b A 1.
' " "Y
~ ~ "'
n
- 9. $/01foA lt2
'96-9SG.
E 3/91 '63 - h 330
~ 9S
~30W
,$ft.,$b,5$'!'$']$".
- 9. [yro// //,2
'75'
//20e,.
8 3/81 'S,B+!
410
~ 100 flo
,$j,NN
[*M, is. AfEl4dh2
'13 togen c
sis 1 'a+,s3 l 9AS
-Ass
-aos PL'M*;g2l.*~
l
- /. &n 6tYle }s3
'?3 >\\oo.
E s/es
'81,s3 Bao e
' 2. faib fle'de. 4?+3
'?6 nyio.
S 12/es <ss,ss, Ate
~ 90
~ Ass
,'pgl**,.,jj,9f"'
a 84 g fe,.CSA'. Actf prouata/h *u Nec.Theff.
. Table 5.
Average Nuclear Power Station Staffing Levels Based on All Operating Units Year:
1972 1976 1980 Total units operating 26 61 69
& stations associated 22 44 48 e
Average staff size based e
on all operating units:
- Single-unit station 75 108 167
- Two-unit station 213 320 478 679 404 419
- Three-unit station 137 215 yf Weighted average per unit 1 01
.Y. ' '
a Distribution of number of operating
/.
units among types of stations:
77
.t t p.
J/ f'
//
/f a,
Key: Indicates association of f
//
f
- 8
' operating units with type of
- station and degree of station
. /l' cperational completeness.
/
- All units / station
- d,
/
g operating ff 6
4+
2 O
'/
- One' unit of 2 or 3 3
/o g
per station operating-
]-Twounitsof3per h[
/4 x ;
station operating o
y i -
Iag 9
h
+
3 1
/
j ff f +gf
+ f p+
Type of
/ g g
S' g' 48 e,
Station:
Table 6.
Average Nuclear Power Station Staffing Levels Based on Fully Operational Stations Year:
1972 1976 1980 e Units associated with & number 18 46 50-of fully operational stations 14 32 34 e Average staff size based on fully operational. stations:
- Single-unit station 75 108 167
- Two-unit station 190 248 427
- -Three-unit station 265 407 669
- Weighted average per unit 82 119 196 e. Distribution of number of units according to size of staff per unit:
(units at fully operational stations g
and reporting staff data only) i i
i l'6i Key: Indicates association of units with type of fully oper-
.'iii s, aticnal station, f
N
/R
- Single-unit station
//N
/+
, to '\\
g 3
M.....
/
\\
s:
s
- Two-unit station
- 3.: i..
to.;. ;. ;.
9
""s J
i'j,:i a.
s 7
=
- '. - Three-unit station U
s g
g
- .u
<=.
g y
f y
M U
h /# !!:! )
3 7
x 7
s.
2 dz q)
,ys I
eP s
e z-a f
S Q
l'?
,g?~ H o
a Staff size:,'
,/, ' 4, j
j, ' g ';
/ ' ;
' g, ' g ' g,
v ble be ar) r$
xSAkl4uA?lyg.,
Sur
$mdda 6ccys/,k,,ds f g,
aed 6 r&fr. ic)
~
-/ rom z u fo s urve, I_.? $
De;rik 8k/+ Bav & (0,)
O ff.kiVe sk // f e L
( 9d )
OcewlA1 utry,*//
Curfrek IMDe& ho,6 70fo/
Of,;f,-b
[dradr Jys!,b& 6,,[
7;%/
/
V r
y s
53
<o. !
aai 6.f S:e 77 02 0.1
- 0. 4-8.f
.Meamar t
_/0.0
/.3
<<o.I
- 3. 0 H.S 3C.9
- 4. 8
- o. S 6.C D.6
_6gkeers froNac5elt 64orieu;ss l3.S
- 2. A ao.1
- 3. 7 l9. I J2.s 39 0..(
/. 2 I (9./ -
I b2caefpa&+
- 6. +
ao./
o.
/,9 8,3 st//s.gewan j
i pa.fia c/pkr_73 o.
o.
i.3 s.6 Shahicn,tf II,I 3.0 c.
a.o
- 16. 1 LB
- o. R o.
o.3 73 u,r/err Clerrisbur}ert 6.0 0.3 a o./
07 9.0
- 9. 9
- o. lo 0.A
- 0. C
/o.9 Allofkr vorler.r 10 3 8.C o.
a.1 90,9 4.C lo l a o.\\
0.1 5.7 1
7Ek
_/
49.5 153
< o. I
/d3
/00.
14.9 12 1
/.+
9.0 foo.
AATEla av so}.stam k Mnic em H, d.e -la r~...JB t
jm WF
.rew.
-M-M wd.em..e eh A rs4 e+
.*W*N*-4.
e 3
I 73 4
}
d 4o a o-b sn o O b o
1 <'
@am se v
e t E a e
% ft 4
.i p
o
~
e n
T W
im g'u.t' e
~$T
. $ '4 j_
$x d N 4 M \\n 0
3 n
m
.h d u m
o u m t
md w u g
cs ce d b
'y :N
~i
~
i O
o g
W}
3=n a
>s e t.
.h
+
4 o s g @
3 *0 s u T +d +7 e% m e
4 t
m @
m
,e m m up m
3 fE ce s m
O 3
2 9
g
-g vi b
4 n
k* r.5L W.
U q
N i
T $%vj
.i t
b
,i,,bi$.
b k
Oh,k,.b b b
t s2 e2
~* 9-v.
s Js
% r.o -
M 4
t ai' s
g T - f *(( i
)rz+ 1 1. 7 :ej U mo si
~wi it dj E; d hj "l %g. s. si o
c u!
"gagc m
2 Ml U <
t
=_
- T~alafe.9.
T~1d Nuder ok Weessee Eacd Ry13,1% plus 198c', Oc O,,4y Duclear Pm 5%u-So.nl:-0M %Ma Ala.
L -0,M S % k is
//o.
7),e os;FCf hla-
.a.
a rubI+d$,'S i Dtd g!og
&a+ $mLN2.
7s,(po
../ /*
e 8=w. _ _ _ __53_
1
/
7r
~
._. 1. 8cl84/ ?? 2 QaaA C; tin k2. 1s,2_f P+. \\k3 1 +2 38 !!wboldfkar.LL -- 3 G-<sy in in, c+ 3 Pack!s.+L nas 91 s1 _+ M*AG~.Ed fl _. A kk Awu+ cc,11 1 %{ee i, s3 78, 34, 13 y /al os!' -3t-S~ EEos l% ID!> kN 5 ISLMas ferry _fg3__y_7, 86 81 .5 t 6No 1 A . _3.1_ C,_ Psala Is\\aJ I41 6_O,Of S Ss _ahe_/dJ_ 6', 4, Millsh?e y,3 .....? Oysb rCreek__.Io9 ___ J_ %wktp M,.290 7 gg-e3, S _C lvidCl& P- /57 129 8 PI__ Ae O3 ok6 !", 6 Rok% 3%. 1- 't MssW ilo so 1 c.kla 97,.99 9 Da h_rst3 3 D23 lo Hfe. '/oahe Si lo Atkysos j9 67,. /7A h!.Sd*3 _. _84_ it Halck (D dd7, $B9 18 IA F5rtOdMe St.. lx TM_T itg 33__?.2. 4 !3 Mikai_ .13 1. '3 Slex 131 149, 30 i 14-Lom e. _..... _R .. _l4..& b y_11 x
- I4i, 3
i _cN.j_16 ir W%dLfm..._.M __lf _@ep eyak n >cr .'ll li-hA.W. Mk... st, th C=f O h. ArnI{ _. _M. 17 _RhpA in _11+, IB Phpdpik Bt4. _. __ /g St Luja. (+1_
- lo8,
'9 lbk I=o.... .77
- 11. hvec.ya! fir in
-_!6_9, 4- _1 e. so pGac (% 3 1, I I 50 ao TfQc G( drydl%er _l7f ~f
-. _. ~ Figure 1. Trends in Nuclear Power Station Staffing, On_ Site Utility Employees ~ 7g .-o ~ _.. -m a --e _,...__a o__ _. _ ~. + 5*o0 .___a_. _a _ _.. ~ _. ~_._. .y. _ _ _. . _.a___ u._. _, _ ._..o y. _. m. .o....o.. _.t._ \\ ..e ._ n_...._ .__...__.._G..s_ ,r. a . y. 3ea._ %, ___...e._____._...._ _a t _q _.. _ _ g .o... _ .t _...._......g.....___ ,t n. .. e. . e... c, __ __.. _._..... _ e 9 o.o .____..._...--__._w .. ae a 5W... _ _r_ __..._.._- n _... _ _ _ _. _...._._._<.>__.q.y__.__ .._ g _.. /oo- __ .A thWM%.r .e., _.m... ....-+b__. -. _ _- _ _~:.~_--. __ _.. I........_..I..... q .....__.t_.._ 0 .. i. i 1 _.
- 6.
/970 /f7s-jygo Cale n d.2 r Ye a r
Figura 2. On-Sito Utility Staffing Level in 1979 for Operating Singic-Unit Nuclar Porr Staticns with Indicati:n of SALP Ratings 2 e i .c
- w
.i J j. l i i e I A -[ - .w. dof-- i .....$'4.A L Mg - i e i i . b-i- 7 , - r
- p
-h m' _.... '...._.I...... ..... F.._ 1 i .i.. 2
- r @.., A.. i.je..
!, g,i
- 1. g g; p i.
...s. ...]. l . j - i. w ~ ... sa,. @ i i h E z, g j - i 1 a.. ._.a.. - - 2 .a .a..;.; y .. a buhe 't y [6.-.._ l4 .. L ...;..L .. _...g. a.L. .=. e in. .a_ .__. y 3 i-l
- 2..
1. .x_ .c p 9 y. . l_ _.
- 1... p.
_T_.. ...... 3 I l ' (//]. ,I - i t.. h..;x _. .r;p] .....w._.!.a. a_ _L.. . u. ..a .u.:.:: L. _.
- .j..
m u. .i. I!. i- :!!: !!;, :it: pi ., r aa .t..,n :
- e i
__l.' .t. t. 1 a
- n-J
, 3. -..N .= _L :. L....a .. e. au.ta a.. a_ A c: au.a.: _n a /use : - { genk j I e ijh; ::..
- ti,- '..
-l 'e L.- i! '.: 8 S/, =D .: ; d l* + n e .tii it ~ ! d.. Hi t . a.._ _.L . ia- .1 l. .. lc i..
- x!n
.a a :... L ua.a,. a.n .o. i:
- p H
.= a. ..i_ .. _ ~ darre f e /,m,.
- .a.a. a..
'~~ l U ,&W = 0.36.l'. 45
- a..
.!l: y.,y
- i
',j, i. n,: ::; l. ":l..,.. .tN$ b. ia i-, t i.. .i.. .t. it. e... 1;. :::, i i.. r ~~l_.. ... b u. ~ u_ i
- k &
..,~n lh.' L E Y u_ ~ f _k ... a.. - i. .- l! s.iii e 'i' E -l_. I hv ap..
- l.
.]- .o, _.y-
- i. i. i.:U:
p FU %,, c>!-i!:: rp:. '. l.. r. o i
- n i:.
i.n A
- ". li i
i t i,}-i-h i" "1 - it .n: r..:: u ti
- .r a ::c
- M:-% G. t. n i '4 tHi 5 i" J -- "8-- -t .p $j 'r-r}F *inj $. ". dT 4 1 .F i .gi.:t::
- a
.-l 3l m: g l l .14 a}. ..n I Phs.!.. g.... /g... a..s 4
- i. i w)-
.a r ~h. _ ;...a a
- .L 1
..L ..l 7-. j a l .t.
- i tai
.a. .l.. r i .1......... .a....., .. _..u..e. p:. - _n n tr + j ._l..
- .2
- .: r
.a h g ". j; q t 6 { l' f- _1 Ih1 1, i -~ R:",, . :..l. ;.. .J l. 1. .U.. {... L. .1. t. ..a
- ...a.
L 3. 7.r .e
- '-.g l
1 _4.. L....a.. a. ..L a L... ....a. 3.._ l,. ~
- a..,.
G a .a.
- 4. -
- 3t 4.
l..a J.a.a. .p. P l. 4;!,s
- r" t"
- 1-
.'",r w '1a .r n:. :,n .=..:_ a.. a s. .a. :.: ... ~ b._ : - a.. -. aa m. ; a".Ja r; * " a':n a".ua,;. a' n" 1.a. a aa 11 e
- .L s..
th: ..a . r,. .a. A na...;L a-- aa _p - .a. n .i: .m, - - 9 a. - *r at: F:... i.- p:;..:
- "~; e
- A c.
m a
- /
i.. F. r 8 !;6: .n
- F.
mO 2.s.- /'eG r. m o "n F e;.' t. .. h.
- D.
r:
- ;: :r.
. r- .a. ., i. p. I . i. .e" i. /9?f"
- !! d.:: i..I..
h i!!' /MO: .n' -...:ndi ;!i,: ! '.
- i /M:
... au .!::.!2960 !!!! t..i:Fi d..:: i!:. i iity: !!:. :.I '. f.- - - -t i-t
- p
- g.,. ;'l :'r 6.
c ei rp ! ph !y !"..:n:
- a....
.---.e ~~.~r ~ p.!
- n
- p :,a n:
- n
.a,.. - 'e .. m: e
- x. !I-g!v.
.u: ... r ~~
- u..;
-t: er: .nl .n.1 n
- ,pl
..~ .i. ".e L - +l o e a n:
- .i. ' p:.
~~ n. r
- t
. ::n.r p:
- i.
m o- ' l' :
- I
.p: e
- .I i
I . - L. ..a ..a J. -
- g. ': o
Fig"re 3. On-Site Utility Staffing Level in 1979 fcr Operating Two-Unit and Three-Unit Nuclear P:wer Stati ns with Indication of SALP Ratings A-g i 2 .l lI 48 FE' l 1 ..l. '.. I. c# .j I ..I. g,m. 8 M l g.. l 4 !ji i:. f a t
- f. -
l .a: g m ..a g ..i. . ].. t j l
- t.
.l l 1 i i .;!; :Ir.- 3,;.t
- g.
i* t I j i { p ...i i.
- e i
a.2. um
- a..
. i.. ... p. . u i.... p ..t..
- s
- I :
-?. I. l b l t I f00 i:F .. g-l i i i t ..l. ..t.._ ..i.. g
- m. :n..
a ..a _ L.. a.. _..i.. 1 t. 3 . n. A .i l' r .p. c.. ~l. I l l .l. .i. i ....._).. .. f.T.e.n...,.O..l.et.S.h.M, .l l _..f.. I .W' '.i.; ..4. j. l J. - I I [ l I H!..,: .'A: 5 + l .I q i. I' a [b .&j_ 8f*' f(*II.W....., C. "... a'.:. -l.. ii: ~.i ..l.. 3 Q.; e S/,u; : / P.5I .3: - d::~ii .i. a l 1 .: p:i. . '..r- .;;., ;g -.:..... '7. l.."-
- l~.
- d. r/; S}h. i. l ".....i._,..
i6 l. W i': .:i: i i r.e .a I 4*oe'[$ # 4/~ l i 1.. ~ . (2)::. { a I $... '.i.N, 5. . a au.a..!;.. i :.: a ...._nu _ < c.. _. 4.... .}. I ...L L . '.4 -. g l 1- . l... n.: i.- - ?;:. ~ e . i:. .i -,- -:i
- ' ~.
i;.. ic i ..I. .l' .:!: iii l ..s.. Hi i 1. h.s'lI.i.. ;:! k... i.!;.is I. .. y3) .l. . l' ~ n i i . ;.-.;._j.
- !j!..*
.l j. a .'.'&.... i.. .. a...a.. :
- 2..; a..,.
!!i n' ihl; '
- !~
I i I T 1: : a'..: 1. ..L' e . j.!: ..t .1 ....a. :.. ... a.. ;..
- 24. 2.
.. _.. _.{ _. 4 { ,;;,.. a:. !..I1:!,
- g.,
g... b I'I .b a a. :...a. :. .a: :. _ ....M:. ..l. _.I. l.i a.. ia J k JE ... j -l [ l I-
- l'..
..... t - r-- ~, - - - --F-g- Q*- 8 - [. j-g i .s .,_ m.l__ a. 2.. .s... . L... (.... . i. A
- a. _
\\ a l .l l f l: . [i. /DQ.- 1 .i .... ~.. .: l. L. ...a. i ...i... g [.... .u; / ha i I.. j L
- 4..:. ;.a
..a ..;.a. ..p.. ..! J. . _..l... e.;. i.L. .o, s &..g A,j,e.w... ....2 a
- aL m
M r
- g..p.
l .i .y-s l y I'l. oh :: g:- }:* l" [ t
- l.
- t.?- . n. ; ;... s.
- I:'
...o. ;: ~...;. I:. ' "f. ! : t' .l e...p. [ j .,). l. [. U =I I. ' b_
- -a.i.a.
L.. .i ~. l a._ a_ _.. L. g
i t a .. n: -.-~:- a. ... _......._...4.,..._g.._. .. y b., q...... .s, .....s.. g m. .g. y n.q. n -- -'... .........____.,,_)}......._._ p,c . g. n.g,g .n,5 g-4.... .._.a... . _.. __. j _.. g.. ...,b s w. %v L....._ ..w q.. .. g b. 3 g, b.4 ....,._..i_. m _._.J._4D-g. ,c ...;...q. 4.. .._....._....g.. g ) g; L.. Q .g. . _ _ _.! s. 3 ~ g .a g _....... j... _. - - g g ......g. _. n.. g. 8 - _ _ :.v.
- C
'\\ _ N ..s.. g, - m \\/) .... "3 9 o . -. _... h.... _ .\\........ .35 ....._....-.._4 N [ .....:. _.... \\. co N . N. s cn N .N. .,........_.....q. %m . y....... ....,.........._ q.. u ,m g .T._....__-._ .9 ,6, C ._...g. .g g a_... 29 g -- y .. 3...,,,' { q .N. - g .... ~ e c-u g g ;; Q,... N. . i =9 l l l l .l. ..i _ __. ;._ 9.__
- __.g -
m a: ......j...,_..._... i i -l l i~ t i ~ i .i o. i 'g*# .e wc e ..._.;.. w -- --------j-- qp l i i i i 1 g o 3 r._..: o ..._____.1. .\\ !
- 'a*2 4
i i. I O j d .n b t -l l =a Si -l l t s. io q , y e __ p. l 3 l j - 8= g g i i .a i w i ~
- =
og 3 e. l l N* "i l D i L l h 4 4 l q i 3 ibo l N. l *f g-i i" t t i i' l
- __.J
.I -l \\ ! i,0 n .......__......'._....._.._s G n li - l... b i 4. . e. e. ~,
- t:- o
. x-t i ^-,. i I I i l N i - s' _O 1 s,. S. t
- ae-
__-n_... ) s I t t i a,. l l g,1 3 g v i I i i i i i I 'l i I-I J l i .gG . g j g. i [ -u- )'... 1 i. i. i I. l w i.- I-- r, - - - -- -- P -- n e6 y c-g 3 4 i l-i i 'I t .g . mf,g..,,. ..-g I -pa3ay pgff--3&.2Q--..- ( -. ' _. 4 ..1 t-e .n _e. m
- Q
.i
- ..:d i i r:'"# G !".
! '.. ". l ' i ! -.i..+ ri- . --*j 9 3- .._g ... \\.,. g.. .a..
- {-
.g .3 y i g-y %e g 1
- i...
v. t. ..... !..."... - t _j 1. g n.! i.-. .i t ..1 .1 z- . l. I-g ,%:. ;;t. ---t 1: n = i .t. ..h=: := aj:- L +
- 4
- g g*i.4
.eN. i Q/ 1l t) \\4 \\o
- h.._
k i l
- = u-i!T
. a.._ = .,/ch1.Ng_ i ..i'i i .l 3 i ,i. ' !-i'iiT.fl:- Q
- % N a
rb.- k.
- ---[n:
o:w ?.
- i-l t.
s. t- = - - %--t1 -A- .s i. 1. :. l_... _- =.:-- ~3. .n u. !.c X g-A .e e. T B_f c 4 - "
- :wi= =
i x< C .g ..! M N. -i.
- -:- si+.:.. cia ' :. _I 1 N
Ei 1 $.y i._ i. L.;:
- i.
- : ;
.] j. .\\ kg
- g.-
.i : i j . "j -.[- a g 1 y-
- 3..
i .i j j .1 .!. - 1 '...:.._. b _. .L...i.__.. j._J. !._... !... 2.._.._ ! ~,[ [,,,L g. 3 y E e i- -iL~' '! d n i. N .o m _.._..g y._.._._._-.___.,__.._.;__.._.9..___.._;.____.;___..,_.. l
- r*
i -l.- , 'l.,, l_.. .l. j i } 6-j y M j q . _kI .I. l ? 4 m i y y
- .g
,Q ( .l i "O l 3 .j-~' 9 .h. _..... p_.. ... _4 _ l-C j
- i.. :
.t \\. EM [ O g f } 6. .g.
- a y
..]..:...".! :=-.... u i.
- @ "0 m : - inui.ii.M..
I ? i ,g : e, \\: RG.g:- .t. :..x i 1. _m o e i \\. !-..... i g g Lp : w - -" g a [- i ..e _ es. i _ g 4f.. .:;e+p !..a-tW.... h. 8 e M i 'j .I
- y c
.I
- )..
.t Q ($ .i j . I. : -.,. { i r i I N ~ .N - - Q.' O j .i \\ l - * '.i. 4.. ;ji .A-w 1 ~ f i .y W. ;i-..pi., f c s -, -.\\ t% .....1.....,,. 4 ~ ,. :r -.- :::-.. -t. (4 O i .j:i. .. 0.:"1:."' S h.i~; Q. ~ .. it '.t.i5. i-MY a .i. ... - -.:. :..J.J $ :!.:: . 'l. \\ ; w. - ..I .. ig. :- if..?.W "..-....:.- =. i,, g . i,. : g m O ..t.. -l . a. - t. ..
- r.. :...
- .}...:j....,j.
. 'CW..... ..Q j-
- 1. -p.
g. l
- .t' l
j. l.
- j
] :, .I.
- j g.l_Q :{i
] s
- ;r_. t,,
.l. ,.. r,.. .s .t , 3.. 9,,. .;._..= .4 3 m. Z
- 1. -
_ : r{-. nl. _: n 3 4 .;v. .g......
- --.1':..
. : c u... _- 2:nl.n : n, ca s::f...r i pf M N l9 h ~ 'l -- E!n: r ! P 21 4 fiEd I_*: fi ?.l'" -l '- [. #ijiiY!- 5$5l:j.hl f g ! :'"'i i-!!!. liri h "'?'1liPi!lINi'-l'iiii'EiI" EI: ' !.! - - l 'Tr-:.Ii E:k.----- er--- ! fir =:P5"=di ". i :1 !E :. i:iMli vivi-"==iO- -1 3--Nfhi%_... e E . t. F.- i.d.l.i.j:iE__ir{i.. _. i.F.. " i -- e. : ' .e. 4... :".. j. 2 _ : ... - --. i.. :..' 8 :. --- .. t.i.....j ; .. ) -._. l.: -h*'.'. . h. _'?_O..H_:i.i.:- 8 - 4
- n '
. s. ta. ~..} in: r==jii"..:l"...!. i:l.' ;gliIjf fif ad_:ju nf%}. -
- . jj.:
'.]. ; Oj '.-i. [j ]ii.[-f=_^= :-T. -
- i-l:Ei ' l -i l:*-SM3 -~ i#
E -E hiWil}52:- I.: h-- l ' N i:Nli 'T-iYjI~:~i-!:'.ne i... 5:l i n - .U . :.. t c : :; .q. .q - . u_. l. :. -..l.........._.e. ~. g.. .;...l... _ : q,,....l..-... .. :: 2.- .g. 9 ]
- fl :--j:1--j,: : ;:. :njuj.::f,nij.:
'.i a.. f l,,,. l p ..:l. .I;,
- l [ l
... " ~.S.: :......,...n.:). :.r..g7. c l n' 2pn.. f.*-. m l. j.. --l} g -..y. . 1. -l-I. . :j:{:,.. o.; ~~/~.'.W(D*w ~'iWWl h~h*;8$f-'i&pi "l::Miij ~ - l-l...i ::.., :.,;..i. :( _
- p;,. ;c - ;
I -:i.'. g ii.-l:..:!-l :..in:.i i.. .J f* f d~Ayemg:..::.: ~ .. - ;... n.=l s r .s-
- 3.
- I
.-!.
- l..
"?. i.
- "t*
ig q i a 3 s a = n m ~Q f\\ (D
~ e; ; APPENDIX A Selected Material from: Working Paper OCCUPATIONAL EttPLOYt4ENT IN NUCLEAR POWER UTILITIES Prepared by: Labor and Policy Studies Program Oak Ridge Associated Universities Oak Ridge, Tennessee Project Staff: Project I'anager: Larry M. Blair Principal Investigator: Ruth C. Johnson Support Staff: Rachel L. Craig Sharon E. Bell Prepared for: Office of Nuclear Power Systens Nuclear Energy U.S. Department of Energy and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations l I . August 1981 t This report is based on work performed under Contract No. DE-ACOS-760R00033 between the U.S. Department of Energy and Oak Ridge Associated Universities. c;';>.
PT si 1-l12 i TABLE 1. TOTAL POSITIONS IN NUCLEAR POWER ACTIVITIES, 1981 (INCLUDING LATE RESPONDENT AND ESTIMATES FOR NON-RESPONDENTS) On-site Off-Site To tal Percent a Occupa tions Positions Positions Positions o f To t'al Managers 2,100-1,600 3,700 6.8 Engineers 3,300 6,800 10,100 18.6 600 700 1,300 2.4 Scient'ists Other professional workers 1,300 1,400 2,700 5.0 Technicians 6,900 3,200 10,100 18.6 Opera to rs. 6,100 6,100 11.2 Skilled craft workers 5,800 1,300 7,100 13.1 Clerical workers 2,500 2,100 4,600 8.5 All other workers 7,500 1,200 8,700 16.0 Total 36,100 18,300 54,400 aThis includes persons employed by INP0 member utilities, vacant positions.' contractor positions used in normal operations, and holding company positions allocated to the utilities.
- Does not add to 100 percent because of rounding.
NOTE: Employment for non-respondents (2 reactor sites and 4 off-site locations) was estimated on the basis of known characteristics of that facility. including size, type of reactor, and years in operation. l g w-w
g,3 5 TABLE 2. ON-SITE NUCLEAR POWER EMPLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION ANO EMPLOYER (Utility, Contractor, and Holding Ccepany),1981 On-Site Employment Total Occupa tion Utility Contractor Holding Company Vacancies Positions 1,800 35-1 178 2,014 Managers Engineers 79 5 0 11 95 Chemical 40 19 0 0 59 Civil Electrical and electronic 448 39 0 94 581 588 93 0 110 791 Mec'hanical - 496 10 1 232 739 Nuclear and reactor 521 152 0 260 933 All other engineers Scientists Mathematicians 18 0 0 0 18 Chemists 141 1 0 39 181 25 4 0 1 30 Physicists ' All other physical scientists 28 0 0 7 35 Biological scientists 30 27 0 1 58 Health physicists 151 20 0 35 206 All other life scientists 13 9 0 3 25 All other professional workers 906 70 0 255 1,231 Technicians Dra f tsmen 52 11 O 10 73 Electrical and electronic 1,654 103 0 345 2,102 All other engineerin9 technicians 739 41 0 160 940 Physical. science technicians 220 19 0 76 315 Life science technicians 41 27 0 20 88 Health physics technicians and radiation monitors 1,176 407 7 509 2,099. All other technicians 706 150 0 189 1,045 Operators i Shif t _ supervisors 643 0 0 133 776 l Senior.-licensed operators 486 6 0 155 647 Licensed operators 1,085 0 0 375 1,460 Non-licensed operators 2,523 0 0 4.66 2,989 Skilled c_ raft workers Electricians 979 223 0 184 1,386 Mechanics-1,692 415 0 366 2,473 [ Welders.with nuclear certification 318 67 0 46 431 All other skilled craft workers 904 330 0 95 1,329 [ Clerical workers 2,083 106 3 260-2,452-3,576 2,965 0 738 7,279 All other workers Total _24,161 5,354 12 5,353 34,880 a 36.100 Adjusted Total I To include late respondent and estimates for non-respondents (2 reactor sites). a I:
- 2. '.
j 6 TABLE 3. 0FF-SITE NUCLEAR-RELATED E!!PLOYMENT BY OCCUPATION AND EMPLOYEP, (Utility, Contractor, and Holding Company),1981 Off-Site Employment Total Occccation Utility Contractor Holding Comoany Vacancies. Fositjo; Maragers 1,297 29 38 68 1,432 Engineers Chemiral. 157 29 3 24 213 Civil 477 129 2 50 652 Electrical and electronic 990 126 11 170 1,297 Mechanical 1,144 573 38 265 2,020 Nuclear and reactor 690 59 15 177 941 All other engineers 778 131 2 239 1,150 Scientists !!a thema ticians SO O O 4 E4 Chemists 109 3 0 17 129 38 0 0 0 38 Physicists All other physical scientists 86 4 0 13 103 m-Biologocal scientists 147 9 0 10 166 Health physicists 104 4 1 27 136 All other life scientists 39 0 0 6 45 All other professional workers 1,181 81 9 85 1,356 Technicians 61 1,500 Draftsmen 840 539 60 Electrical and electronic 223 28 0 7 258 All other engineering technicians 397 69 21 62 549 Physical science technicians 60 2 0 5 67 Life science technicians 34 0 4 1 39 Health physics technicians and radiation monitors 80 5 0 15 100 All other technicians 452 8 1 53 524 Skilled craft workers - Electricians 187 8 0 15 210 ?!echanics 731 10 0 21 752 Welders with nuclear certification 37 3 0 5 45 < All other skilled craf t workers 200 5 0 10 215 Clerical workers 1,626 97 31 79 1,833 All :ther workers-750 178 2 23 953 Tstal 12,9 4 2,129 238 1,512 16,823 a 18,30C AJjusted Total To include late respondent and estimates for non-respondents (4 off-site' locations). a W
- i.
s ,. + - 40. 1 llistorical Trends Projections , Cap'act ty ^ 6- {in gigawatts) ,.=,,........- LO / 3 I / . co.- - 1 .a. J. v 3 l 80 -] m m it -60 =.!, Empioyment j ..e -*.......,,....... (in thousands) } ,s p -...e,,a y i .I c
- g..g
,,,e 1 a o 3 ,20 .e s *,. 1 t p . v,- ,/ / j _ g ______ 0 -l.e..........;.......... ........i.........;........i.....,.,....-....;........,-.n,--.m.,. 13 %
- 257 1959 1971 1973 197C 1977 1979 1981 1933 19 %
19't ! 1993 1991 1J93 i335 Ti.R9 Figure 13. Growth of uclear Power Capacity and Utility Employment in Nuclear Reactor Operations and Maintenance
p g,g 37 TABLE 15. POWER PLAfiT STAFFING WITH OtlE OPERATIt!G UNIT Mean - Positions Occupation fiumber Pe rcent Managers 25 5.9 Engineers 35 8.3 Health physicists 3 0.7 Other scientists 1 0.2 Other professional workers 30 7.1 Engineering technicians 34 8.1 Health physics technicians 25 5.9 Other technicians 15-3.6 Shift supervisors 8 1.9 Senior licensed operators 6 1.4 Licensed operators 10 2.4 Non-licensed operators 46 10.9 Electricians 17 4.0 Mechanics 32 7.6 Welders with nuclear certification 5 1.2 Other skilled craft workers 13 3.1 Clerical workers 33 7.8 All other workers 84 19.9 Total 422 100.0 -Standard deviation 80 Haximum value 559 Minimum value 358 aThe tr.ean values for power plant staffing are from 8 power plants, . ranging in capacity from 805 to 1,130 megawatts'.
I,.
- n
&7 .,n -.. 38 TABLE.16. POWER PLANT. STAFFING WITH TWO OPERATING UNITS fiean - Positions Occupation Number Percent Managert 15 2.0 Engineers 66 8.7 . Health physicists 4 0.5 Other scientists 19 2.5 Other professional workers 29 3.8 Engineering technicians 58 7.7 Health physics technicians 39 5.2 Other-technicians 24 3.2 Shift supervisors 17 2.3 Senior licensed operators 10 1.3 Licensed operators 25 3.3 Non-licensed operators 53 7.0 Electricians 44 5.8 Fechanics 48 6.4 Welders with nuclear certification 13 1.7 Other skilled craft workers 51 6.8 Clerical workers 36 4.8 All other workers 204 27.0 Total 755 100.0 Standard deviation 292 Maximum value 1,247 Minimum value 538 aThe mean values for power plant staffing are from 5 power plants, ranging in ~ capacity from 1,762 to 2,205 megawatts. I
i A-et ~.a - g. A*O N'-
- , ~ ',, a 39 a
TABLE 17. POWER PLAflT STAFFING WITH THREE OPERATIt:G UNITS Mean - Positions Occupation. ilumber Percent Managers 38 4.6 Engineers 46 5.6 . Health physicists 4 0.5 Other scientists. 4 0.5 , Other professional workers 2 0.2 ' Engineering technicians 113 13.7 Health physics technicians 36 4.4 0ther technicians 38 4.6 Shift supervisors 26 3.1 Senior licensed operators 14 1.7 -Licensed operators 32 3.9 .Non-licensed operators 47 5.7 5.4 Electricians 45 Mechanics 52 6.3 Welders with nuclear certification 19 2.3 Other skilled craft workers 66 8.0 Clerical workers 49
- 5. 9 All other workers 195 73.6 Total 826 100.0 Standard deviation 190 Maximum value 1,045 Minimum value 700 l
t-aThe mean values for power plant staffing are from.3 power plants. with regawatt capacities of 1,795, 2,661, and 3,195. F .}}