ML20039D337

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to 790424 Request Re Authority of Commission to Require Offsite Training.Nrc May Legally Impose & Enforce Requirement.Related Info Encl
ML20039D337
Person / Time
Issue date: 04/24/1979
From: Shapar H
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD)
To: Bradford P
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20039D336 List:
References
FOIA-81-131 NUDOCS 8112310538
Download: ML20039D337 (7)
v • d • e


Text

,

m w m "_ r....u. ~. _ y -

. +: - m. _ _ p. _ ~.

M y' ~ % 4,.

l.1)12

_.g..

3. g

.a en me 4: SECRETARIAT RECORD COP'0 - B o,,mo,,m,

k

- h s i. ET

, i AfUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n

3 E,'

8 E

wA:aumoTom,0. c.2 ossa

o e

r=e.

April 24,1979 E

aa 2

..::n k*r.

b,=E

.a s

MEMORANDUM:FOR:

Comissioner Peter A. Bradford '

- @r W} Lee V.. Gossick, Executive Direc't$.4y is t

THRU :

Og r

i for Operations p2 p

..:=

FROM:

Howard K. Shapar 2

Executive Legal Director W:2 u

SUBJECT:

AUTHORITY OF THE COMMISSION TO REQUIRE

< EN OFFSITE TRAINING

.H j

i.m

=r.

During the April 20,1979, Commission briefing en licensing of aa control room operators, you asked about-the ability of the NRC

' ".p..

to require an applicant for an operator's license to obtain off '

n--

site simulator training.

==

.~:

i'-

Your question. arose out of the discussion of. training for " initial s i

p"TI applicants" for operator. licenses at reactor facilities.

During H

1 this discussion, it was stated that simulator training is not 1 ie-provided these applicants because of the experience.the applicants-59 i:

have 911ned during pre-operational testing of the reactor.

It was also indicated by Mr.. Collins that a potential labor-management i!"-

2 5

problem is a-reason given why these applicants are not provided G

offsite simulator training.

In making this statement he was referring W=

in.

.i.

to conversations held.with various licensees in the early seventies'

?.O when simulators were beginning to be used in the reactor training 5;4 3,,

process. At.that time some licensees.apparently were concerned that e : :.

offsite training might result in potential union problems because of E

.' vertime questions and similar labor-management questions.

It is o

P not appanent why similar concerns were not expressed for offsite~

-d simulator training for " replacement applicants". -*f Qif

y. i.;

In any event, the question presented here is whether the NRC may ld ac require a reactor licensee-to provide offsite training for a reactor a- :d h,.

operator applicant notwithstanding the fact that such a requirement i 5d L,:o,.,

may result in a real.or perceived labor-management problem.

For the Jid o

5%

reasons indicated below, I belteve-the NRC may legally impose and

".Z

~~8C

=s s

e @ iij

  • j : Recently, licensed operators at Yankee Rowe objected to offsite M e.,

t 1

.[W

,"Id N

L q,Q -

simulator training as part of the requalification program because Y

of concern that they might be examined by NRC on ~a simulator which

[ p ! ~c>;7-j-<<:.

was not an exact replica of Yankee Rowe and before adequate time:

gy 4.g!

GL L. $

was provided-the operators to become familiar with the differences Q,, @

q C.}

oon.a. -

between Yankee Rowe and the simulator.

i' 3

~

- r.

c.m,...

VM nu

......t?

. Commissioner Bradford

- =

1. ':

um 62=

Tes

- e4 enforce such a requirement.

==g; The authority.for imposing requirements for the licensing of reactor 8

y operators. is. found in section 107 of the Atomic Energy ~Act of 1954;:'

22.;

as amended. -(Act):

N 503 "Sec. =107, OPERATORS' LICENSES.-The Comission'shall -

L 2.:

i;.

a.' prescribe unifom condit1'ons for licensing' tu.:.

1 individuals as operators of any of the various fi::.

. classes of production and utilization facilities 4

r--

licensed in this Act;

%h.

W{&

b.. determine the qualifications of such individuals;

="

ht=r c.

issue licenses to such individuals in such fom Gf

' as the Comission may prescribe; and

7+~

d.

suspend such licenses for violations of.any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation issued n.=.-

thereunder whenever the Comission deems such action desirable." */

,p.-

Unde'r this p'rovision operator licenses may beEsuspended for violations t

4

.3

'!whenever the Comission~ deems such action. desirable".

In addition,-

fi.e under section 234 of the Act, civil penalties may be imposed against

  • ~.

licensed operatocs for violations of requirements.

55=

C+2=

It is clear that the Nuclear Regulatory Comission was provided broad O

o b

discretion in developing and enforcing the requirements 'for operator t

,y licenses. The regulatory scheme under the Act is:

~~

  • I5.

" virtually unique in the degree for which broad

5 responsibility is reposed in the administering l."3

. agency., free of close prescriptions in its charter Zi as to how it shall proceed in achieving the statutory 7

objective." **/

L n

  • /i The intent of this section was to require the Comission to license ^

r t;;-

operators in a manner similar to licensing airmen under the then i: L

-~

Civil Aeronautics Authority now Federal Aviation Administration'

""j v

i, i

and the rlicensing of radio operators by the Federal Comunication in=^

Comission. S. Rept. 83-1669, at 20 (June 30,1954).

t5:.i2 ta=

~**/ Siegel v AEC, 400 F.2d 778, 783, (D.C; Cir.1968), Public Service et-i

Company of New Hampshire v NRC, 583 F22d 77, 82 (1st Cif.'T978).

5-.

dI4d

??EiT e._=

l ).,174.pg e1rvrp,@ #.4T&74AL'T A"Fi* C

~r1:*~M C M:W*

  • J-

"*2

" *^ #-

H'

  • d

(

V c:ff' Q.Q.:,f ' ~ ~ ~ V C "i % ',. - - ".

.. ?

r:

fs bT h

h=

Comissioner Bradford t= 2

=M The Comission's discretion for establishing its licensing require-S ments'for operators is not limited by potential 1 abor-management S",

concerns. The Act does not provide that the Commission may regulate E

the construction and operation of nuclear power plants except where-gm such regulations interfere wt tn labor-management matters.

p The question of whether the existence of a. labor-management problem M

would interfere with the Commission's responsibilit'es, was recently

[

raised in the Callaway Show Cause matter.

In that' case the Director mn of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement issued an " Order = to Show W4 Cause" why the Callaway construction permi.ts should not be suspended tie until the Commission was permitted to conduct an investigation relating E;;;3 to'the temination of a worker who had made allegations to the Comission. *f k:Ea The Licensee in response to that Order argued throughout the Show Cause M

proceeding that the Comission's investigat. ion interfered with its labor-

[=,=0 management relations and that the Commission jurisdiction was limited by the existence of a labor dispute.

The Appeal Board held that the i=h Comission is not prevented from carrying out its health and safety 55 responsibilities because of incidental effects on labor-manaaement 4.r=

practices that might result from exercising such responsibilitics. **/

3 n;

Therefore, if the Comission finds that offsite simulator training is an E-jii. 9 appropriate requirement to promoto the public hcalth and safety, the

,qq.;

existence of an associated impact on labor-management relations does not T

M.'

prevent the Commission from promulgating a enforcing that requirement.

.. T~

l 0

&T ?

howard Ki Shapar Executive Legal Director

[.Q cc: Chaiman Hendrie W:

Comissioner Gilinsky E_...?

Comissioner Kennedy Comissioner Ahearne SECY /

CCC -

NRR

" ~;

I&E

.:s.

1=9

.. ur

  • /

Union Electric Company (Callaway Plant, Units 1&2), Order to Show I.5 Cause Why Construction Permits Should Hot be Suspended, April 3,1978.

    • / Union Electric Comoany (Callaway Plant, Units 1&E), ALAB-527, 8 NRC

~,

~

~

(February 23,1979).

. _,g

a:n

'fli~

if.~.'

y.y q3 e

,=2we

- p y 3 c--

... m,,,. - :

as->~,.- s-w.-

.?

a.

{'. _- -

,j o.

3 ~,,.

.,1

-- ~

~ '

1

w. -

..a;.g.

. s.;. _ ; -

.--, 3...
. ',,..- -

!i:.:^.:p LO, /. h.'.. ::g.C?;

r.;.;, :--.:i::;.; ~.: ;,

-R

.u mr,...

- n.~.

u...

+... -

n..

.....=..UL.T:*f;.-

'.. ' ~:

..h Q: %pe%4.; s,

'Ji-vi.r.. -..-.

E-- : - ^. 1" p*. -..

---.-t

--W T0: W-=tSAM.UEIF.; J.:..CHILK 'SECRE,TARY OF THE COMMISSION"

..--.u

-.,4m...

. n w--

..m u :=n w m.gg,,.

..,. - ~. -. -

FROM:~-"?.r2.(.G.,;......_c..

13

~c,

,. - ~....

?OMMISSIONERBRADFORD

'~'

~~

"I

~

C s, ::r,..,

w..

... = w. m....

.=.. :.

..:.= =

a m :. =. =. x,. e, m

~.. ~ -

.a

SUBJECT:

w.CY-81-84... PROPOSED RULEMAKING, " QUALIFICATION Of RE

~

JSE r.

n.

w.==a-r

. w

- c..-

5..,' h ? { 5 b'$ $e m$ DE^ *?h=h5NE &:&.~ w.~*Y W. $...'h.

N E'*2..' ? <'.

h f

~o me=.a.m measaaowm 1-n.v
=

c Uh

%-EZ.

Mit.'.-5%2&W ~~Q;hF. *:.%2f:T-

..=iit6t - - my

~2..

T

~

APPROVED" E "

DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN

...~...

y.g7.w..,,

u.... u..

NOT..P. ARTI.C. IPATING

. REQUEST DISCUSSION

~~

COMMENTS:+.a...

g

,Ifg ? _ a ; ? l " /_ # _ ~ ~ ~ ~

?.:. z-lK %.

g 3

..y&g

).,w,flkE W

Y "

'^~ r, f n j _ J m

R

,;/t M

Vg[

/

A

]&

$O

' g

/ '?'.fu P

.i r

f

/

1 (Seetypedversionattached.)

S16NAlyKt f/

J tu i

DAlt 1

SECRETARIAT NOTE:

PLEASE.ALSO.-RESPOND TO.AND/OR' COMMENT ON.0GC/0PE MEMORANDUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS' PAPER.

-NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80

~ -.

er.Ls.-

w..

l

.s.s...

...s.

r,.

. ;.w;.,

. ~.

I

)

. =-

r %..Q._.....

.. x.. :..:.:.y.. =.

. '.;Is.. b U,s.e U e.;; & -M ;

. 1 N.. r....~' !.

f.

2 a

e v.

f.,,.

....,,... =... _.

3. _ e..,.y......

.....c..,.

....,..... 3.,

g.

- -- -l., P. a 9 e..-9..a.s.,-m. od i f i. ed.,.......,._,.....

.: - * - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

m

. 1..e. m-.. a w sp,JH..s.... a._..a..w...c.

6..r.. : u. n.,..:

... w +..,

2) s..Agre.... i th

..coninents.

.e.

.. ~..v....

c......

..,...u..

3.

..m

,.m._..

.....> u -w..~...

- e.w ur-

=

. g e:q. 5m:d+:2.-w

=;.v. + m.-

n= m.g.,

2.:g. m. _.g:_,.r g 4+. : q m..;; a::p p -

.. w-3)~ ;I.'would:like a description of the staff's longer range plans in this

'~

^ " -

- - " " - area' before we dearvith the final rule. ~

^-

~-

.....m._..

s._..

4)

- Also before dealing with the final rule I would like a justificatio.n..

r

.m..--

-of;2naaor: differences between the rule and fut.u.re plans on one hand

-7 g-i

.w,-

. and NUR.EG/.CR-1750 on the other.

.r.-=.

.C...

a..

u-

. w. gv.: s n...

s

._..'.s

~

. r O i.t. I. ' *

.,<.s. 1.

m...

r, -

.,v.,A. _._. 2,.2...

c.

w=-.-===.~._.m.L,.c=.-------

a,=-

, m

-u

-.=. =

s

..eAm9,seg.p.-

mpgy.

~.

.n

.. s... y

.,.x....-

,m.

j

  • L. ;. 6. *

.*.L..

.._;_..._7_--

-__.e....-...

on...e e-e.

.e...

.g

. -- est. *: ", K.

e..*.

...e..

. k 4...a 5.

..f.9*-

~~

  • E,** *- Q,..*,Wlp"$.

_l..i r.

. 63*.5 *-'r.b-*f.

w

... a 6 w.t.'.+..

e.

~

+

S.'.h.

.4b S*

1 i

1 i

I t

6

). <

C.. h.. :i.[.

ff

^

[7590-01)

._~. n.~ ---.

~ :.=.

~:~ : ::.nr.m: m:::=.x::.= -..

~

u..

r g gn.Steae cases,.E.nuiaer.cl.. Aitern&tive - proposh is ir Sr.i ii ut.Cer cc,..S i src.-

l

, h O I k-

'e.,..

I

.-g..

.;e.,, 7.... 6,

3 c y s);.; _

.:.t

, ;b h'hL

i D. k.--
. (..,..

W..:.

the;e..:.; ducationa'l. requirement, as proposed, i'nclude the fact.that in addi...

+
.

d *Nf d'.]$

tM}toTskillsf,.;the high.; school diploma documents an, individual's mo

,.9,':N.;,i s..

1..

r?.

~ -.. -...;'

4..

5 tion O.

s yms e.w%@ pens: -~;g --

- n-a +v v

  1. ffik..

tiogand self-discipline'necessary to complete a comprehensive educational

. - ~ ~

.- =~h,.,gm y.~..eb pro'gIram' and not Just to pass a single examina

'2 3.

5?' C '

~

a Na"9Eff.2,[4%.Gidhelor of' Science degree that includes at least.60 seme

W,

-n

. -. (3 ---

%"Q M.w:

z,

.M.+jy.; -g

~-=;._

_ [;

specif.ic technical subjects is being proposed as the education requirem,ent e.

-:..: 5s h.~ ~...c n.

w-

.-w.

.n

.t

]

m.m-a.u:.n~

.m:- =

=

e~fo.r the. seni.v.<-w.or... ope.rator,.the alternative of requiring.only' :.a. specific. -

r; w

s.

y

-s v

V)3 t

~Q-;

O

.g

^3

. number.o.f semester. hours.of college level courses, but not necessarily

.g q

,+

s. _...,.j

,g-. g ' 7 6

f

p comp'l'eting' a -degree program is also being evaluated.

Again, although

'k*E*I(

t'hi alternative may represent a viable technique for increasing the A

,E

.. a

(

'g g

[,$,

technical competence of senior operators, a Bachelor of Science degree Jg'd5'I ES

' - " ~

seives'as a measure of the individual's initiative to complete a compre-3 g.

,y

. ;.3....

.e hensive educational program.

Such motivational qualities are consistent

.a w-n-

bo

~

J with the strengthening of the cadre of h'ighly trained and highly dedi-

^Q.

s

1~..

cated professional reactor operations personnel.

Related to this con-f a) e 4.c g--) d sidehationistheexpectationthatutilitymanagementwilllookfor 3

' g J

  • r w % individuals with degrees and experience as senior reactor operators

_ 7 M

(

candidates for more senior positions in the nuclear portion of the company.

Such opportunities for advancement should ser"e as enticement for individuals with degrees to' serve on shift work.

The type of simul & tor required to be used to conduct training would also be specified.

Provisions have been included in the proposed amend-ments for the Comission to approve alternative types of simulators, 9

, Enclosure "A"

r. -

u,--

1 ~.., -.

l

=: ;: w --

T0:

SAMUEL J'. CHILK, $5CRETARY OF THE COMMISSION FROM:

COMMISSIONER BRADFORD

SUBJECT:

SECY-81 PROPOSED RULEMAKING, " QUALIFICATION O'F REACTOR -

OPERATORS

/

DISAPPROVED ABSTAIN' APPROVED NOT PARTICIPATING

. REQUEST DISCUSSION COMMENTS:

1 Vb d

4x w

o l

%/

Y0 a

SIGNAIURE

.3 19 7

/

DAlb SECRETARIAT NOTE:

PLEASE-ALSO. RESPOND-TO.AND/0R-COMMENT ON.0GC/0PE l

MEMORANLUM IF ONE HAS BEEN ISSUED ON THIS PAPER.

A NRC-SECY FORM DEC. 80

,

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20039D337&oldid=4562063"