ML20153G588

Requests Commission Decision on Whether to Publish Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Revising 10CFR55.31 to Require That Each Senior Reactor Operator Hold Bachelor Degree from Accredited College or Univ

ML20153G588
Person / Time
Issue date:	08/31/1988
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
TASK-RINV, TASK-SE SECY-88-245, NUDOCS 8809080232
Download: ML20153G588 (56)

Text

__-_____

?

, f'"%

ps "

I- j

\,...../

RULEMAKING ISSUE August 31, 1988 (Notation Vote) szcy-88-24s For: The Comissioners Frsm Victor Stello, tir., Executive Director for Operations Subjtet:

~~

PROPOSED REVISION OF 10 CFR PART 55 TO P.EQUIRE DEGREES FOR SENIOR REACTOR OPERATORS

Purpose:

To obtain a Comission decision on whether to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking that revises 6 55.31 of 10 CFR Part 55 to require that each senior reactor operator (50) hold a bachelor's degr?e from an accredited college or university.

Category: This paper covers a major policy matter. Resource estimates are Categury 1.

Issue: Whether sufficient justification exists to revise 10 CFR 55 to require that 50s have bachelor's degrees from an accredited college or university.

Background:

An Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) was published on May 30, 1986 (51 FR 1956:) that described a proposed rule to require a bachelor's degree in engineering or the physical sciences from an accredited institution for each applicant for a senior operator's license (Enclosure A). The staff prepared a sumary and analysis of the coments in SECY 87-101, dated April 16, 1987, which presented several options for considera-tion by the Comission, and requested Comission guidance on which option should be develop.4 The options considered were:

1. Proceed with the contemplated degree rule and concurrent policy statement as proposed in the ANPRM. The policy statement would encourage utilities to develop a program to ellow current R0s and 50s to obtain a bachelor's degree. This option would in the long tem result in two Senior Operators on shift who have bachelor's degrees.

2. Propose a rule to require an individual on shift with a de 9e, similar to a Senior Manager as described in SECf-84-106, "Proposed Rulemaking Concerning Requirements for Senior Managers.

Contact:

M. Fleishman, RES 4B 3Vst- .-

_ B f d 90 00c23 0 ~~ D i

v The Comissioners 2

3. Amend the Policy Statenent on Engineering Expertise on Shift (50 FR 43621) to explicitly encourage licensees to develop programs leading to degrees, to utilize the combined 50/STA option, and to phase out use of a separate STA.

The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards ( ACRS) also considered the proposed requirement and discussed it at several meetings in 1986 and 1987. The ACRS strongly supported the concept of having engineering expertise on each shift (Enclosure B). They did not agree that requiring a degree for senior operators was the best approach though they agreed that specific technical knowledge should be required.

They believed that, because of the concern about adverse effects raised by many knowledgeable individuals, the proposed rule should be reconsidereo.

On June 24, 1987, in a staff requirements menorandum (Enclosure C), the staff was informed that the Comission had agreed to proceed with the contemplated degree rule and concurrent policy statement as proposed under Option 1 in SECY 07-101. The staff was directed to prepare and forward the proposed rule to the Comission for review and approval.

Discussion: The staff has prepared a Federal Register notice (Enclosure D),

that we believe is responsive to the Comission's directive.

The CRGR reviewed the Federal Register notice and stated that while it is desirable for 50s to have a degree, there is no compelling evidence to indicate thet a rule requiring a degree is necessary and it may be detrimental to safety. They recommended that the rule not go forward at this time.

The staff has considered coments from the Comission, ACRS, CRGR, end the public. The basic concept as described in the ANPRFi, requiring a bachelor's degree for 50s and grandfathering current 50s, was retained; however, the following changes were nade.

1. The rule is limited to applicants for nuclear power reactor 50 licenses and does not apply to S0s for non-power reactors such as research and test reactors.

2. The option of accepting bachelor's degrees in other than engineering, engineering technology or the physical sciences, on a case-by-case basis with appropriate utility certification was eliminated. This option is still available via the exemption route as prescribed in 5 55.11, Specific exemptions.

I T

The Comissioners 3

3. As requested by the Commission and various comenters, the cut-off date is specified as 4 years following the effective date of the rule rather than January 1, 1991.

4 The rule now clearly states that the one year of "hot" operating experience must be as a licensed operator.

This was only implied in the ANPRft.

5. Since the A-year period is specified and approxirwtely an additional year would be required to accomodate the rulemaking process, it was felt that it would not be necessary to include the one reexamination feature for applicants without degrees who apply just before the cut-off date. The feeling is that there exists sufficient tine for all applicants to apply for and receive their 50 licenses. Thus, only persons who have an 50 license on the cut-off date would be exempt from the degree requirement.

Finally, it should be noted, as indicated in the Federal Register notice (Enclosure D) and the Regulatory Analysis (Enclosure E). that regulatory guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.8 and NUREG-1021 would require revision if the proposed rule went into effect.

Current guidance in position C.1.e of Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2. April 1987, "Qualification and Trainino of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," allows an applicant for a 50 license with a degree to have only 2 years of responsible power plant experience, none of which needs to be as a reactor operator. This would have to be revised if the proposed rule went into effect since the proposed rule would require a 50 applicant with a degree to serve as a R0 at greater than

?0 percent power for at least 1 year. Furthermore, the current guidance indicates that a R0 applicant must have a minimum of 3 years of power plant experience of which at least 1 year shall be nuclear power experience. This would also have to be revised since it is inconsistent with the proposed rule which implies that an applicant for a RO with a degree must only have 1 year of related nuclear power plant experience. Position C.1.d of this Regulatory Guide, on educational criteria, would also need to be revised to reflect the rule.

Also, because of the "grandfathering" provision and until all 50s have degrees, the current policy, as described in the Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift (50 FR 43621),

would have.to remain in effect to ensure that at least one person on each shift has a degree.

Although this paper has been generated in anticipation that the proposed rule will be published, the staff has continued

I v

The Corrnissioners 4 to search for an alternative proposal that retains the advantages of the proposed rule, while avoiding its possible negative aspects. We believe the benefits derived from implementation of the )roposed rule, include: (1) vesting individuals who have tie authority to direct operator response to off normal events with ennanced capability to analyze and understand events, thereby improving tiieir capacity to lead shift operators in restoration of the plant to a safe and stable condition; (2) improving career sotentials for shift supervisors by enabling growth both witiin and outside the Operations Department line organization, to positions historically reserved for individuals with technical degrees, thereby avoiding staff stagnation and deterioration; (3) enhanced professionalism in the control room, including ettertiveness te controls, the condition of the plent and the quality of communications, spawned by individuals who see themselves in important, upwardly mobile careers; and, (4) serving to infuse the whole organization with an opera-tional perspective. Some possible negative aspects of the proposed rule include: (1) reduction in the overall experience level on shift as the pool of potential applicants is reduced and the 50s with degrees move to more desirable work, and (2) reduced morale for R0s without degrees who cannot advance along the natural career path to the 50 level.

The staff, in reviewing past initiatives against these advantages and negative aspects, believes that an approach similar to the one identified in SECY 84-106 has considerable merit and may deserve reconsideration by the Connission prior to the decision to issue the enclosed proposed rule. The SECY 84-106 approach proposed the establishment of a senior manager position which would require an engineering degree and an 50 license, but with supervisory responsibilities such that the operating crew is accountable to this single manager.

Regarding the senior management position SECY 84-106 states in part:

"The proposed rule was developed to combine technical and analytical expertise with operating experience in a senior manager responsible for integrated management of plant shif t operations (e.g., supervising chemistry, security,etc.).

health physics, The senior maintenance, manager operations,for integrated would be responsible management of shift operations and would be required to:

(1) hold a bachelor's degree in engineering or a related physical science from an accredited institution, (2) hold

e f

The Commissioners 5 a senior operator's license for all units on site,I and (3) have five years of nuclear power plant experience, two of which have been as a licensed operator at a similar (same NSSS vendor) operating commercial facility.

At least one year of the comercial licensed operatino experience must have been at the seni 9 r operator level.

"As the individual responsible for integrated plant operations, the senior manager would be in a position of primary authority on shif t and would be responsible for coordination of all plant shift activities. This responsibility would include mtnagerial direction of all plant functiers including chemistry, health physics, maintenance, operations, security, and technical services, j Also, the senior manager would be responsible for i providing the shift supervisor with the engineering and technical direction necessary to ensure that a nuclear i power unit is in a safe and stable condition in the event of an off-normal situation."

The staff recognizes that this alternative could also achieve an increase in technical knowledge and staff professionalism on shift but would require updating SECY 84-106 to incorporate additional knowledge gained since its initial publication and to deal with actions, such as issuance of the policy statement on Engineering Expertise on shift, which have occurred in the interim. The updating of SECY 8'>-106 would include revision of the proposed requirements and regulatory analysis, prepara-tion of a backfit analysis that was not required when SECY 84-106 was originally written, and would incorporate a supplemental policy statement to encourage utilities to develop a program ,

i to allow current R0s and S0s to obtain e bachelor's degree, t

l-Resource i Estimates: It is anticipated that there will be relatively minor impact i on NRC staff resources as a result of implementing the

proposed rule. There may be some increase in the number of I applications to process and tests to administer, due to the attempts of current R0s to become 50s prior to the cut-off date, but this should not cause a significant impact on the j NRC staff. No new resource requirements 6re expected.

The Office of General Counsel has reviewed this paper snd has no legal oujection, r

1 In the event the person does not hold a license on all units, additional '

senior operators with degrees are required for those units for which the person does not hold a license.

l i

I The Comissioners 6 Recomendations: That the Comission:

1. Consider the approach, as described, which would establish a senior manager polition, in lieu of proceeding with the subject proposed rule. If desired, the staff will develop the required paper and a supplemental policy statement to encourage utilities to develop a program to allow current R0s and S0s to obtain a bachelor's degree.

2. If it decides to proceed with the subject proposed rule, approve the publication of a proposed amendment, as set forth in Enclosure D, which would require each applicant for a senior operator license to operate a nuclear power i reactor to have a bachelor's degree in engineering, engineerina technology, or the physical sciences from a accredited university or college. Those persons holding a 50 license at the cut-off date, which is four years after the effective date of the rule, would be exempt from the bachelor's degree requirement.

3. Note that:

a. The notice of aroposed rulemaking in Enclosure D will be publis1ed in the Federal Register, allowing .

60 days for public coment.

b. Pursuanttoi51.22(c)(1)of10CFRPart51ofthe Comission's regulations, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared,

c. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,

. the proposed rule contains a statement that the l Commission certifies that the rule will not, if i promulgated, have a significant economic impact upon I a substantial num'er of small entities and a copy of this certification will be forwarded to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA by the division of Rules and Records, ARM;

d. The Subconmittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate

) Comittee on Environment and Public Works, the Subconmittee on Energy and the Environment of the i House Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, and f the Subcomittee on Energy and Power of the House

! Comittee on Energy and Comerce, will be informed.

I L j e. A Regulatory Analysis is attached as Enclosure E; L

> r

, f. Copies of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be  !

distributed by the Office of Administration and i Resources Management, Division of Publication 1 l

e f

8 The Comissioners 7 Services to each affected utility licensee, and other interested parties.

4

g. The ACRS has been regularly consulted concerning this proposed rule change and has separately provided formal coments.

Scheduling: No specific circumstance is known to the staff which would require Comission action by any particular date in the near term.

1 h

~m.etor Stg110, Jr.

[

Executive Directo or Operations ,

Enclosures:

A - Advance Notice of Proposed Rulema king, 05/30/8G i B - Letter from W. Kerr to L.V. Zech, Jr. dated 08/1?/87 l C - Memo from S. Chilk to V. Stello, Jr. l dated 06/24/87 D - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 3

E - Regulatory Analysis i

I 1

Commissioners' comme.nts or consent should be provided directly  ;

! to the Office of the Secretary by c.o.b. Friday, September 16, j 1988. l I Commission Staff Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Friday, Seatember 9, 1988, with an 3

information copy to the Office of tae Secretary. If the  !

paper is of such a nature that it requires additional time l 1 for analytical review and comment, the Commissioners and the  !

Secretariat should be apprised of when comments may be expected. [

DISTRIBUTION:

Commissioners i

! OGC (

OI ,

l OIA j GPA  ;

REGIONAL OFFICES }

I EDO  !

) ACRS (

, ASLBP [

] ASLAP F I S::CY (

! l t

a - _. m 0 8 D

I L

I E

ENCLOSURE A 2

i i

1 s

i l-l

) l I

i I

)

I I

4 I

I J i

1. i L

I i.

I

?

h

Federal Regist:r / Vol. 51, No.104 / Friday. May 30. 1966 / Proposed Rul:s 19501 conduct all or a portion of the other . Room at 171711 Street NW., baccalaureate degree in engineenna, duties that need to be performed at a Wa shington. DC. engineermg technology, physical science, or a profesalonal en*gineer's

( federal animal quarantine station. FOR PVRTHem letPORMATsose CosrTACT:

license. Option 2 permita continuation of This document requesta commente F. H. Rowsome. Ofhee of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. U.S. Nuclear the separate STA who rotates with the concerning whether the Department shift and holds a baccalaureate degree should take action to contract with Regulatory enmmission. Washington, DC .10555. Telephone: (301) 492-4813. or equfvalent and meets the criteria as private firms to conduct such activitin.

suPPLausNTamV lesposessATsose: stated in. "Clarifica,t, ton of TM1 Action Done at WashrNnen. DC.this rth day of Plan Requirements. (NUREG-0*37).

y,y % Background De Commission also encourages the l K. Atwe!!. The issue of academic requirements shift supenisor to serve in the dual role Deputy A d sinistrator.1'eterinary Sarwoes for reactor operators bas long been a posidon, and the STA to take an active

[m Doc. an-12110 Filed 6-to-M A 45 am) concern of the Nuclear ReFulatory role in shift activities.

'"*****"* Commisslon (NRC). In July 1979."TM1-2 The current advanced notice of lessons Learned Task Force Status proposed rulemaking is intended to

_ _ _ _ . _ ____ .-- extend the current level of engineering Report aad Short Term

- NUCLEAR REQULATORY Recommendations."tNUREC.a78)s expertlee on shift. as described in the made specihc recommendations for a Commission's policy Statement on COMMISSION Shift Technical Advisor (STAlto Engineering Expertise on Shift (50 FR 10 CFR Parte H and 55 provide engineering and accident 43621) and to ensure senior operators assessment expertise during other than have operating experience on a e

i Degree Requirement for Serdor normal operstmg conditions. On commercial nuclear reactor operstmg at Operators at Nuclear Power Planta October 30,19*9. the NRC notified all greater than twenty percent power e a .

operating nuclear power licensees of the "bot" operatina experience (Generic Aorney: Nuclear Regulato'I short term STA requirements,i e., that Letter 64-te) nis AdvanceNotlee of Comminion. STAS should be on shift by January Proposed Rujemaking is the result of a l Actiow: Advance notice of proposed 1980. and that they should be fully Commission deciolon to consider en rulemaking, trained by Jr,nuary 1981. ln November amendment to its regulations (Parts 50 7 980,"Clarification of TMI Action Plan and 65) and to obtain comments on the suumany:The Commission is Requirementa,"(NUREG 0737), contemplated action to apgrade the i, considering an amendment to its provided farther details to licensees levels of operating. engineering. and s dmaimplernentationof theSTA accident management expertise on shift.

. 1 a ph n for scense"s a Senior Operator of a nuclear power Concurrent Policy Statement

,. The quahfications of operators were plant hold a baccalaureate degree in also addressed by the 1979 "Lenons %e Commission also intends to

( engmeering or the physical sciences Learned Task Force."(NVAEG-05A5), prepare a concurrent poGry statement from an accredited institution. Other the 1980 Rogovin nport, *"Three Ele which will encourage nuclear power baccalaureate degrees from an Island. A Report to the Commissioners plant licensees. t.e., owner-operators, to:

accredited instituuon may be accepted and to the Pubbe,"(NUREG/CR-1240). 1. Implement personnel pohcies that on a case-by-case basis.nis and the 1982

• Report of the Pur emphasite the opportunities for licensed contemplated rulemakmg action is due Advisory Panel and the Nuclear operators to assume positions of g

to a Comrnission decision to enhance Regulatory Commission on Operator increased managetaent responsibibty; the levels of engineenna and accident Quahficauons." (SECY a2-182) 7h, 2. Develop pro ama that would J management expertise on shift. The consensus among these was that greater '"'bl* *"#""tl# '**""d "ni" current requirement, for candidates with technical and academic knowledge ' P "

i a baccalaureate degree, of two years of among shift operstmg roonnel would *T,"[*"y"""8'd"""""d responsible nuclear power plant be beneficial to the se ty of nudoar #

• 8'

• I" esperience. would be er tanta appropri8te Dut3'8r power plant training operatinf to require at least one of theTn O tobe't 28.1985, the NRC smende and wo.k experience through

,} two years of operstmg experience be published in the Federal Regleter (50 FR arrangements with the academic sector.

with a almilar commercial nuclear 436:1) a final policy statement on reactor operating at greater than twenty engineering expertise on shift. Option 1 Discussion percent power. of the Pohey Statement allows an D * '

= cata: Comment peaiod aspire 4 July 29, indwidual to serve in the combined ,,,', ,", ,["[E)p*,',,dging,

• 1986. Senior Operator / Shift Technical engineering. and accident management Advisor (SO/STA) role holdmg either a espertise provided on shift by Cornments received after this date will be conaldered if it is practical to do combining both engineering esportite

• • and operatmg experience in the senict so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given escept as to comments

{Q" ome by uun taw awamo e by none ne se operator function. His la being done to received on or before this date. U S coverszeat fune oua Pa sua naa further ensure the protection of the Mme*m DC mW copam me t* beelth and talety of the pubhc by having A008E 8824: Send written comments of suggestions on the proposed rulemaking to the Secretary of ibe Comminion. U.S.

C"$%YD. saa"s*M y.

" personnel on shift with enhanced quahacations, Nuclear Regulatory .nmisaloc, sepi e u w noet smsf,ea uemew In maewisead/w 6nsu.le e su as no NRC is conceraed that eperator 3

Weshington,DC20S35. Attention: ** qualifications to deal with accidents Docketma and Service Branch. Copies of T.mtec hbt4 oacw= We Meet arenoon, mr H Street beyond design basis conditloca m arrant g the comments received may be e,easw ei se Nac Pm omaneet acou et m, improvement. Operator trainirs esemined at the NRC Pubhc Cocument H sirnt Nw. w eew esen, oc programs and related emergency ENCLOSURE A l ,

l . . -e -w e

19562 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.104 / Friday. May 30. 1986 / Proposed Rules eperating procedures, generally do not baccalaureate degree from an licensees (utihties) and the nuclear consider accident conditions beyond accredted college or university. Industry to provide incentives and inadequate cbre cooling There is In the past the NRC has accepted management opportunities for sos as general consensus that well quahfied

• equivalents" to the baccalaureate well as improving the engineering operators can substantially mitigate the degree. The equivalents were based capabilities of the on shift crew. The SO effects of severe accidents. The industry upon specialized utihty training or other with a degree and abift operating Degraded Core Rulemaking Program work experience. For the contemplated experience can become a valuable (IDCOR) industry group for example. rule, equivalency would not be personnel r=6ource for the utility, one has developed arguments that operators acceptable to the NRC in lieu of a who combines shift operational could substantially reduce the nsk degree. Becaup the Commission is not management experience with the proposed by these conditions. The NRC in a position to evaluate the academic potential for gmater management .

is considenn5 the need for more equivalency of utility training. it responsibility. Me pourv i tatement will estensive sr. vere accident training and encourages academic institutions to encourage lice.nsees to provide that emergency operatins procedures as well allow course credit for such equivalency career path.

as engmeenng quahhcations for senior based upon work experience or A regulatory analysis and a backfit operators, specialized training. Thus the proposed es,essment will be developed after the The policy statement on enginetnnt concunent policy statement would comments are recched anj evaluated, expertaa on shift (October 28,1965. 50 encourage efforts to have the training prior to notice of the proposed FR 43621) provided an intenm way of accepted by the colleges for partial rutemaking and concurrent policy cchieving more engineenn; capabihty credit toward fulftuing the requirement statement.

l on shift. Easentially the NRC is moving of an accredited degree. '

from intenm requirements whu.h The degree requirement would not levitation to Comme nt

, provida engineenng capability for apply to hcensed reactor operators Comments regardmg the proposed cccident conditions (the STAL t: (ROs). llowever, the proposed rde are entouraged Comments on the rqutnng engmeenns capabihty, and concurrent pohcy statement would contemplated rule are sohcited in regard nuclear power plant operstmg encourage degrees for ROs. The to:

experience in the same indnidual(the Commission beheves a degree . 1. Is january 1,1M, a ferMble 50). requirement on shift. along with the deadline for requiring senior operators The contemplated rulemaking action concurrent proposed policy statement to be degreed and beensed, and if not, would require that all applicants f or a will not only enhance public health and what should the deadhne be?

Senior Operator (SO) bcense after safety, but will aiso provide a route for 2. What the implementation and anuary 1.1991, must hat e a promotion by sos. operation costs of the contemplated rule accalaureate depee in engineering The cut off date of january 1.1991, for to utihties would be? -

engineering technology or the ph)sical app:ication for an 50 heense by 3. Assuming regular shift rotation. i sciences from an accredited university indniduals who are not degreed is Id th I bt ! -

et college. Other baccalaureate degrees chosen for three reasons. First. it will incert or e alde e prior to from an accredited institution may be . allow operators now in training ganuay1,1My accepted on a case by case basis, sufficient time and notice to complete a

4. % hat type of engineering degree Degree equivalene degree before apphcation. Second. it eccepted. A baccafawill no longer be be ap a ureate degree in should not cause undue hardship on g,( g gd ha tc?

I another subject area would be ' operators who are now in the process of 5. %. hat has been the industry.a preparing and training for the senior ccce$ esperience in securing college-cert es table if the that the utthtyhas apphcant (bcenseel operator hcense. Third. licensees are e

demonstrated high potential for the SO encouraged by the Policy Statement on position. Engineenna Expertise en Shift (Option e{u P 8 s d/or w rk i e ience?

6. Shodd there be similar emperience The contemplated rule would apply 1) to move toward a dual role SO/STA only to the SO. Ucensed sos or position. Furthermore, operators who requirements for one of a kind otherwise fully quahfied applicants print are licensed as sos prior te january 1. advanced reactors?

to January 1.1W1. would be esempt 1991, would be

• grandfathered." The 7, W hat are the combined impacts of

, i from the degree regulwment. Ucensed proposed rule would only allow one re, requiring two years of responsible reactar operators (ROs) would not be esamination for 50 appbcants who nuclear power plant expenence, ths required to have a degree. apply for a license lust prior to January degree requirements, and one year ,, hot,,

Current senior operators and senior 1,1991.This would prevent essentially operating requirement for the position of

= operator applications accepted by the unquahfied mdalduals (without SOF NRC prior to january 1,1991, would be degr'ees) from applying just to "beat" the 8. Should.the contemplated degree "grandfathered" with res,ird to the deadhne, requirem:nt for senior operators be contemplated rule. it is re:ognized that The contemplated rule also requires supplemented with or replaced by "grandfathering" current IOs could one ) ear of "hot" operstmg empettence intenslie focused tralning requirements r result in undegreed sos fc r an estended for a degreed SO after lanuary 1,1991. in severe accidents for nuclear power period of time. This is simply a continuation of current plant operators?

The proposed concurrent pohey NRC established policy to provWe S. What are the appropriate criteria statement will encourage g reviously engineering and accident espertise on for assesslag a utility's certification that l heensed sos to obtain degrees it is the shift !t is essential that the SO know an indwidual with a baccalaureate intent of the present sharce notice of and understand plant operations as well degree in other than engineering or the proposed rulemaking to sp ecify that as the theoretical, academic, and physical sciences has

• demonstrated senior operator heense applications accident management aspects of the high potential" for the SO position?

receis ed after lanuary 1.1W1. would not position. 10 What are the implications of this i be accepted by the Comm ssion unless The concurrent policy statement la contemplated rulemaking on decisions the beense application holds a planned as a way of encouraging concerrdng future reactor designs?

ENC (.050RE A

Federal Register / Vol. 31. No.104 / Frida), May 30, 1036 / Proposed Rules 195G3

11. Should the NRC require 15. [ Chairman Palladmo believes] that 18. Preser?]y one degreed engineer is

( specialized training in severe reactor the attached Table required to be within 10 rtunutes of the accide** beyond inadequate core identifie: the presen[t]

t controlcorrectly room staff control rnom or a member of the control coolLg ano/u seoire extension of as well ss that envisioned by the room staff, the STA or the combined emergency operstmg procedures into the ANPRM by 1991 and after 1991. Should SRO/STA, respectfvely While requiring realm of more severe accidents instead other alternative control room staffing a second control room operator to hase of or in addition to baccalaureate requirements be considered? a technical degree eney enhance degrees? What are the implications of 16. nfl itnprovements in control room operator organizational status, the work by IDCOR for the qualifications, train!ng, and emergency capabilities undertaken by and staffing the indus , i.e., have STA been ,a professionalism and esprit de corps, will operating procedures for licensed have been added, detalle control a second degreed engineer s!gnificantly reactor operators and senior operators? design reviews have been undertaken. E' ' ' 'beyond

12. What is an appropriate cut off date safety parameter display s) stems hase gT co b O/STA for allowing only one re examination for been installed, emerTency operating improvements?i these M, ed :mpmements those SO appl. cants without a degree procedures have been improved, and the become apparent in the short term or the who apply fe. a license just prior to combined SO/STA position has been long term?

Janua ry 1,199t ? epproved by policy.To what extent 19. What is the ladustry Osw about

13. The proposed rule would require have these improvements been availability of new college graduates an 50 applicant to have a baccalaunate effectis e? who can be trained in nuclear pow er degree in engineering or the physical 17, Requiring SO's in the control room plant operation or about the feasibility eciences from an accredited university to have a technical college degree will of havirs present plant operators pursue l

or college. What should be the have animpact on RO e and AO's, and obtain a technical college degree?

l appropriate definition (e 3., Department espectally with regard to a career path 20. Should there be a numerical limit of Education. ABET, etc.) for "an for these personnel. To what estent will on the total number of *g'andfathered" accredited uruversity or college?" the 50 requirement drive out capable

14. What immediate impact will the so s at any particular plant?

operators, and result in high personnel I contemplated tvle have on operater om o oooe rieom turnos er and instabil:ty in the

, morale? workforce?

i .

O e

E e

O

, ENCL.05URE A

19564 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No.104 / Friday. May 30,1986 / Propcsed Rules TABE 1 SECY-86-70 DNE UNIT (

ONE CONTROL RotM 1 11 111 IV V PRE-TMl NUREG-0737 SECY 84-355 ANPM NOW TO 1991 1991 AND AFTER(

'~ '

1 50 2 S0's 2 S0's .

2 S0's 2 S0's(4) 2 RO's 2 R0's 2 RO's 2 R0's 2 RO's l 1 STA(E)(5) 1 STA(E)(5) 1 STA(E)(5) 1 STA(2)(5)

--0R-- --OR-- - - O R'- -

1 SO/ STAID)(3) 1 50/STA(D)(3) 1 SO(D)(3) 1 S0 l' S0 1 S0(4) 2 R0's 2 R'J's 2 RO's,

--OR--- ..

I 2 S0's(D)(3)

. 2 RO's TIME i 1979 1979 1985 Now 1991 (1) 10 CFR 50.54(M)(2). ,

III As NON-DEGREED GRANDFATHERED S0's RETIRE, OR OTHERWisE LEAVE THE l

INDUSTRY, CONTROL ROOM STAFFING WILL EVOLVE TO 2 S0's(D) AND 2 RO's.

(3) D = BACCALAuc.EATE DEGREE IN ENGINEERING OR RELATtD SCIENCE (No EQUlVALENCY). .

I GRANDFATHERED. .

(5) E = B.S. OR EQUIVALENCY.

)

ENCLOSURE A

- - - - - - - - - n -- -

Federal Register / Vcl. 51 No.1N / Friday May 30, 1986 / Proposed Rules 193G5

. Additional Comments of Commiseloner reactor operator (sRO) beenses and eerdng knowledge and undentandmg of reactor Roberts in the position of shift supervisor. theory needed by heensed senior nactor

( "Although I believe that additional operatore nis method would include the The additional comments of erwmunns knowledge is needed by beensed fouowing steps:

Cornmissioner Thoma: M. Roberts on '

eenior reactor operaton I am not sansfied *1. Estabhsh a working group. with NRC.

this ANPRM follow: either with the approach recommended by academic and injustry parucipants. with the

,,Although I continae to beheve that well- the NRC staff of with the position adopted bF responsibiht) to define the eng,neenrg the Commission in this advance notice of tramed and quehfied operators are important propend rWemaung De NRC staff La** da' *"d ""d'

• sd#8 *f "**'

in assonng safe and nhable opereuon of proposed that efter january 1.1991, all theory needed for esectot operators to deal nuclear plants. I am concerned that this opphtants for a senior Mactor operstot effectively with design basis eventa and rulemaking wW negauve!y affect the les el of beenn hold a baccalaureate degree in avm oceldente.

estarience and expertm of serJor oper6 tort engineenns ce a related science from en *L Estabbah a trelning currhlam for each (the potential for negata e impbc4tions w as c: credited insutution. In addibon, the staff nuclear utthey operetot tralning program that raised in the 1982 report of the Commwon's proposed a requirement that eher January 1. wiu provide all senior reactor operators with peer Advisor) hnc! cn Operator 1W1. et least one ERO per shift et a nuclear the knowlede and understandmg defined by Qua14 cations). I will be specMca'Jy pow srplant (the SRO serving as the shift interested in pubhc comroents on: (1) ne step 1.nie curriculum would estabbsh

_ manager) mut the degree requirement. Fo' milestones in indwiduv p.blect areae to be estent that a formal deren requirement for purposes of th iadvance nouca,the senior operators to related to lob scMeved bF new SRO candidates and performance. (2) w hether requinns a Commission uta.cebted recommendauon the staffe first not the second.no pnWously beenes ? SRO.e and would lead to baccalaureste deree for seruor opert tore practical effect of the Commisalon's poettion eatisfactory coeps ton of the cumeulum not wtJ enhance pubhc bealth and safety. and (3) is to esempt forever from the degrn

• later ba january 1 t9st.nese curriculums t$ what negative safet) imphcations me) result requirement any person bolding an SRO would be renewed ad accredited by hRC or

{ from this preposal beense onJanuary 1, SW1. by an appropriata industry or third party "While tne stan and the Commission organisation.

l Additional Views of Corntnissioner prepcsa's would bnns about some 3. Develop and admituster new NRC Antelstine improvement in the engineenna knowledge of senior reacter yktstorlicensing i The additional views of Cornmisstoner f,,";',I',,","r

,1 ,','N,' esaminations and NRC and beenue SRO I

larnes K Asselstine on this ANPRM also esaw S es Ftnt. it la not clear that requalacation esahtions that will test I foUow: schievement by operators at each of the requnna s haccalaureate degree in

'1 have approved this advance not;ce of engmeenns proddes the best means for anilestones dafined under Step 2. leadtag to a sed rulemaking for the se of aasunns that senior reactor operstors base comprehenalve esamination not later than b a ntrig pubhc and industry mment on the knowledge needed to carry out their 1991 for au new and pnviously bcensed the vanous ephone for u eJms the level of naponsibilities. Some courne required for en senior reactor operetors. A passing rede on operating. engineenna anTeccident engineertas degree may weu be trnlevant to this etamination would be required to obtain beha or d

(- management esperttee on shift et operating nucleer powerplants I agree entirely with the $u[d'"

enginMng nt con know@

t and reactoe bory or retain en SRO bcense after lanuary 1.

I "I' conclusion es' pressed in this advance notice needed ta understati and cope with beyond Usl of Subjects that operstf* qushfications to deal with design basis accident situet'ons wtU not be accidents beyond the desi$n basis for the plants warrent improvement Quahf;ed covered * 'he courus neeaA to obtain a 10 CFR Ibtf 30 baccab seate eng'neering des n.Second.

q eperators can play a potentiall) s:gnincant ggpo,4 e degne requinment for SRO's is Antitrust. Classified information. Fin I role in twigatmg the consequences of tesere 1.kely to neult in the loss of some protection, Incorporation by reference,

accidents However. in order to carry out the expenenced and skiUed reactor operetore . Intergov ernmental rela tions. Nuclear role, operstors must hat e sufficient After 1M. espertenced reactor operatore po ner plants and reactors, Penalry, knowledu of engmeenna and resetor thwy to undersed plant behanor under sesen (RO

) w til not be permitted to become SRO's P ediation Protection, Reactor siting without obtaining a degne, and the SRO's l accident concns. without a degree will not be cble to advance criteria. Reporting and recordke< ping "A!though considerable progrees has been to the position of skft manager or superdoor, requiremerits.

i made in recent y ears in improdrg operator trainmg progtems and plant emergency Third by focusing on depte requirements for 30 gg g y SRO's. these proposals wtil requtre htwally operating procedures, these trotnog programe wears befsre engineering knowledge on skft Manpower training programs. Nuclear and procedures generally Jo not csnsider Is substant!aUy u;yadeiin the ciae of the occident cond; bons beyond inadequate core Power Iilants and reactors, Penalty

• staff proposal some 5RO's wtl hase cochng Moreoger, despite the improsementa upreded er+neenng esperuse (appbcants Reporting and recordkeeping in reactot operator tratamg recent for SRO bcenses after lanuary 1.1991, and a requirements, um espenence with NRC admirkttried nacter pr,.gm $go s serving ee skft managers) operefor requehfication 2 esamtastions wkle others need not opgrade thetr MMT Oh indicates that some operators a*, hmna eng.neering knowledge at eu (pre 1M SRO s difnculty in reta!ning the les el of knowledge The authority for this advanced notice not urvins as the skft mana of engmeering and reactor theor) e eeded to of the Commissica prepouL ber). La of theroPosed P caseree tu1emaUng numbere is.'og deal efrectisely with design basis esenta- beennd SRO's could be esempt from any Autbariryt Sec.141. Pub.1.83-703 64 Stat.

Bese indicatwns of weabess in operator uppedmg of their emeuring knowledge Ng, es amended (43 US C. 004 knowledge of engineenna and *eactot theory, because the des ee requirement would ody the obsence of emergency prwdures to deal Deted at Washington, DC, this 17th day of app!) to new SRO appbcante after lanuary L with beyond design t>a sla es ents, and tha 1M. To evoid the require.sent, e utthty could May 10aa tehance on operator actions as one trearts of simply obtain 5RO bcenaea for allits reactor For the Nuclear Regulatory Commisnors mlhgating the effects of severe occidents au operatore prior le 1991.

int to the need for snore estensive "la Mew of the disadvantages of the NRC FassuelI CNE.

owledge of engmeenns and reactor theory staff and Cocunission propouls. I woult 3*CND """'# 8 "

on the part of plant operators. er d appreciate comments en en alternatne p'R Doc. so-12153 Ftled MSM 8 45 aml C particularly those operators holdirg serdor method for upg edeg the engmeenne entnacoot rse&4us s .

ENCLOSURE A a

l

.e ENCLOStlRE B 1

1 r

]

4

.i ,

i  !

t 1 i

i i

l r

e E

A f

i 1

l I

h I

1 e

1 l

.' i t'

n 8o **cuq'o UNITED STATES

~g

!" c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{g

.I ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS WASHINGTON, D C. 20656 l

/ ,

• %, .....$ August 12, 1987 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. -

Chaiman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

ACRS COPFENTS ON THE ADVANCE NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING:

DEGREE REQUIREMENTS FOR SENIOR OPERATORS During the 328th meeting of the ACRS. August 6-8, 1987, and our 327th meeting, July 9-11, 1987, we discussed SECY 87-101, "Issues and Proposed Options Concerning Degree Requirements for Senior Operators," which was  ;

prepared in responte to public coments on the proposed rule. Meetings of our Subco:.nittee on Human factors were also held on July 15, 1986 and June 24, 1987 to discuss this issue with the NRC Staff. During these 1

' meetings, we had the benefit of presentations by the NRC Staff as well as, representatives of the Westinghouse Electric, KMC, and Delian corpora-tions. We also had the benefit of the documents referenced.

On May 31, 1986 the NRC published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rule-making (ANPRM) to require all applicants for a Senior Reactor Operator (SRO) license to possess a baccalaureate degree in engineering or physical science af ter January 1,1991. Two hundred letters of public coment were received in response to the ANPRM of which appioximately 98% indicated opposition to the NRC's proposal.

The nuclear utility industry and the NRC have endorsed a systems ap.

proach to performance based training. At the heart of perfomance based

- training is a detailed Job and Task Analysis (JTA) which analyzes the many tasks that mast be performed to carry out the various jobs of personnel filling positions in nuclear power plants, including the position of SRO. The tasks are further anal various knowledges, skills, and abilities (KSAs)yzed that one must to detemine possess the to perform the tasks. The analysis continues further to detemine whether the KSAs should be obtained.through fomal education or through specific training in the classroom, in the laboratory, at a simulator. '

or by self-study.

A number of JTAs have been perfomed by licensees as part of the c.onver-analysis of these JTAs has not thewn sion to perfomance based training;for that a college degree is necessary Senior Reactor Operators to EriCLOSURE B

. The Honorable Lando W Zech, Jr. 2 August 12, 1987 perfonn the tasks of their jobs to ensure safety of plant operations. A Peer Advisory Panel appointed by the Comission came to the same conclu-ston in 1982 and recomended against a degree requirement for SR0s. We

have not been informed of any technical rationale for requiring a degree

for SR0s at nuclear power plants; we conclude, therefore, that a degree '

requirement for all SR0s is primarily a policy issue.

We strongly support the concept of having engineering expertise on each  !'

shift. The Comission's requirement of a Shif t Technical Advisor (STA)

' was a step in that direction. Further, the Comission's provision of the option to combine the STA function with one of the SRO positions was a step to encourage greater integration of the resulting engineering i expertise into shif t operations. The Comittee endorsed both of thse i actions. Tha NRC Staff indicates that the percentage of SR0s with a baccalaureate degree in engineering or physical science has increased from 17% in 1980,to 28% in 1987.

We are informed that the primary reasons for considering requiring all SR0s in the future to have degrees is to enhance professionalism in reactor operations and to make it more likely that the higner management positions in nuclear utilities will be filled by individuals with plant operations experience. We endorse these purported goals but question j

1 whether they will be realized through the proposed indirect approach of requiring degrees of all SR0s. We believe there is a more direct approach to achieving these goals than through the propotud rulemaking.

I We .recomend that the Comission formulate more specifically its con.

cerns and the goals it desires to achieve. The Comission then should meet with appropriate licensee represer,tatives (e.g., NUPARC) to convey the need for increased attention to the areas of concern. The NRC Staff

' and the licensees should then work to develop solutions, programs, and i schedules for implementation of any changes from current practice deemed

]

necessary. We realire that proposed rulemaking is one method to gener-ate sufficient attention to encourage licensee initiative; however, we

• j believe a more direct and less adversarial approach is preferable when the proposed action is not driven by clearly identified public safety j

concerns.

In sumary, although the purported goals of the proposed rulemaking are laudable, we think that the depth of the concern about adverse effects of the proposed rule should be reconsidered; many of the coments were 1

received from individuals who are knowledgeable about personnel consid-1 eretions in the work place. We recomend a more direct approach to identifying and addressing the Comission's concerns.

i i

ENCLOSURE B

4. . ,  !

. l.

3 August 12. 1987 The Honorable Lando W. Zech Jr.

i

' Additional coments by ACRS member Glenn A. Reed are presented below.

Sincerely.

l

\

4010A.

William Kerr I

^ Chaiman f

[

<l Additionel Coments by ACRS homber Glenn A. Reed l

As a l I applaud the ACRS letter and wish to add further support to it. i

! person who earned a university engineering degree and one who held an i i

j NRC SRO license. I am opposed to the degree requirement for SR0s, as in j my opinion it is not needed from a job task analysis viewpoint, is not in the interest of licensed personnel morale is not needed in the j t interest of best safety of operations, and would lessen the experience i I have found that a college degree in l

! qualifications of SRO personnel. i engineering or applicable science will probably ensure that an $R0  !

candidate will have an acceptable enough inte1119ence quotient to be j j able to take on-site training. However, there is no assurance from the i l college degree achievement that the 3R0 candidate will have the even  ;

more important qualifications of mechanical comprehension. logical t [

}

reasoning, and appropriate personality.

My' thirty plus years of hiring and working with Itcensed operators has f

} convinced me that acceptable performance in a battery of aptitude tests j

comprehension, logical reasoning, and personality I

(!Q. mechanical [

traits), coupled with appropriate esperience and training, will provide t the best SR0 performers and people in overall shift charge. My expert-g ence also has convinced me that the Shift Technical Advisor concept that was endorsed some years ago by the NRC can provide the best engineering ,

I suoport, and the best future promotional cross fertilitation into utility top management, and into the vendor design field, j

References:

Issues and Proposed Options Concerning 1

1. 5tcT-57-101. April 16, 1987 l Degree Requirements for Senior Operators.

j

2. Federal Register. Vol. 51 No. 104. Page 19561. Friday. May 30,1987, Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.10 CFR Parts 50 and 55. Degree l

Requirements for Senior Operators at Nuclear Power Plants.

3. Cossnents pertaining to the Advance' Notice of eroposed Rulsmaking - f i

Degree Requirements for Senior Operators. RMC. Inc.. September 29, l 1986.  !

ENCLOSURE B f I

e e

i Y

I t

i ENCLOSURE C l

L b

i i>

f j  !

I p L

l A L

1 I

I l I l -

j

'l l i i

4 e

il h

, t

. 5 i <

a i

)

i I

F i

r l

l

'o UNITED STATES

~,,

.  ! c NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$lON f.

E f w AsHIN GT ON. D.C. 20684

%,,,, *o June 24, 1987 OFFCE OF THE SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR: Victor Stello, Jr. Executive Director for Operations '

,p /4-FROM: amuel J. Chilk, Secretary SUDJECT: SECY-87-1C1 - ISSUES AND PROPOSED OPTIONS CONCERNING DEGREE REQUIREKENT  :

FOR SENIOR OPERATORS This is to advise you that the commission (with all Commissioners agreeing) has approved the staff's recommendation to separate the training and educational issues discussed in the SECY paper. While agreeing to separate the training and education issues, commissioner Asselstine believes that additional engineering knowledge is needed by all licensed operators and that each utility should be required to develop and implement programs for all 1 licensed operators which would provide knowledge equivalent i to a two year Associate Degree program.

The Commission (with Chairman Zech and Commissioners Carr and Bernthal approving) has also agreed that the staff ,

should proceed with the contemplated degree rule and concurrent policy statement as proposed in the ANTM (Option l 1) . This option will result in all newly licensed SRO's l

having college degrees, four years after the

effective date of the rule. All individuals holding Senior Reactor Licenses prior to that date will be ' grandfathered" '

so as to assure that no SRO loses his/her job and that valuable experience is not lost. Commissioner Asselstine approved a rule which would require all shift supervisors to hold a Baccalaureate degree no later than five years after the ef fective dat of the rule. Commissioner Roberts disapproved degree requirements for licensed operators and provided commente.

All Commissione .. provided comments on the SECY paper proposal. Copies of their comments have previously been provided to you with their vote sheets.

The proposed rule should be prepared and forwarded for Commission review and approval.

cct Chairman tech

) Commissioner Roberts RevdOM.EDO commissioner Asselstine DMt b I d' I-S 7 -

Commissione*, Bernthal I

Commissioner Carr Umg En 3 o A-OGC GPA ACRS ENCLOSURE C

i t

i

}

ENCLOSllRE D 1

1 l

l b

4 l

l >

l

{

i I

I L

I t

i I

I i

i l l i

i l

l s

t

'l I

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION  :

i \

10 CFR Part 55 l Degree Requirement for Senior Reactor Operators at Nuclear Power Plants

\

AGENC'i: Nuclear Regulatory Comission. [

?

f

• ACTION: Proposed rule.

.)

i j

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Comission is proposing to amend its i j

1 regulations to require that each applicant for a senior operator license to ,

operace a nuclear power reactor must have a bachelor's degree in engineering,  ;

! engineering technology, or the physical sciences from an accredited university  ;

or college. This proposed action will upgrade the operating, engineering, and

! accident ranagement expertise provided on shift by combining engineering l

l expertise and operating experience in the senior operator position, j The Comission believes that the requirement of a bachelor's degree for the  !

, t

senior operator position would further ensure the protection of the health and

! safety of the public by enhancing the capability to analyze and respond to complex transients and accidents and restore the reactor to a safe and stable b

condition, j l

, i

! DATES: Coment period expires (6C days following publication in the Federal j

! Register). Ccerents received af ter this date will be considered if it is  !

L l

l practical to do so, but the Comission is able to assure consideration only for (

i i l correntti received on or before this date, t j . 1 Enclosure 0

ADDRESSES: Mail cements to: The Secretary of the Conrnission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission. Washington, DC 20555, ATTENT!0f!: Occketing and Service

< Branch.

Deliver coments to: One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville. Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Coments may also be I delivered to the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, N.W. Washington, DC between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

Examine comments received, the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, and the regulatory analysis at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Washington, DC.

Obtain single copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant inpact and the regulatory analysis from M. R. Fleishman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Pesearch, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3794.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. R. Fleishman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. huclear Reculatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)492-3794 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMAi!ON:

Background

Since the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI 2) accident on March 28, 1979, in which ,

L human error, among other factors, contributed to the consequences of the l l

accident, the issue of academic requirements for reactor operators has been a rajor concern of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). In July 1979, "TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force Status Report and Short-Term Recomendations,"

2 Enclosure 0

(NUREG-0578)I made specific recomendations for a Shif t Technical Advisor (STA) to provide engineerbg and accident assessment expertise during other than nor al operating ccnditions. On October 30, 1979, the NRC notified all l operatino nuclear power licensees of the short-term STA requirements, i.e.,  !

that STAS should be on shif t by January 1980, and that they should be fully ,

trained by January 1981. In November 1980, "Clarification of TM! Action Plan Requirerents," (hUREG-0737), provided further details to licensees regarding  ;

l implementation of the STA position.

The qualifications of operators were also addressed by the 1979, "Lessons Learned Tesk Force," (NUREG-0585), the 1980 Rogovin report, "Three Mile Island:

A Report to the Comissioners and to the Public," (NUREG/CR-1240), and the ,

1982, "Report of the Peer Advisory Panel and the Nuclear Regulatory  :

Comission on Operator Qualifications," (SECY 82-162).2 The cor.sensus among  !

l these reports was that greater technical cnd academic knowledge among shift operating personnel would be beneficial to the safety of ruclear power plants, c l

l l

4 e

l I i i

! i I Copies of all huREGS referenced may be purchased through the U.S. Government

Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060 or by writing to the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies may also be i

, purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of f Comerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room,1717 H Street, NW. Washington, DC. ,

2 SECY 82-162 SECY 84-106, SECY 87-101, and Generic Letter 84-16 are available at the NRC Fublic Document Roon at 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC.

! I i

3 Enclosure 0

1 On October 28, 1985, theNRCpublishedintheFederalRegister(50FR43621)a i

final policy statement on engineering expertise on shift to allow an alternate j means of providing the necessary technical and academic knowledge to the shif t i 1

.; crew. Option 1 of the Policy Statement permits an individual to serve in the  !

j corbined Senior Operator / Shift Technical Advisor (50/STA) role if that l

[ individual holds either a bachelor's degree in engineering, engineering l L

j technology, physical science, or a professional engineer's license. Option 2 I i I j permits continuation of the separate STA who rotates with the shif t and holds a i e

I bachelor's degree or equivalent and meets the criteria as stated in.

) f i "Clarification of TH! Action Plan Requirements," (NUREG-0737). The Comission l also encourages the shift supervisor to serve in the dual-role position, and [

i i the STA to take an active ro'e in shift activities.  :

I t i i l On May 30, 1986, the NRC publ:thed an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 1 (AhPRM)(51FR19561). The purpose of the ANPRM was to extend the current  !

l  !

i level of engineering expertise on shif t, as described in the Comission's l

i Policy Statement on Tngineering Expertise on Shift (50 FR 43621) and to ensure f that senior operators have operating experience on a comercial nuclear reactor

operating at greater than twenty percent power, e.g., "hot" operating

(

experience (Generic Letter 84-16)2 The ANPRM was the result of a Comission a

decision to censider an amendment to its regulations (Parts 50 and 55) and to

! obtain coments on the contemplated action to upgrade the levels of operating, engineering, and accident management expertise on shift.

l i

1 I (

) 4 Enclosure 0

f l

in addition to describing the proposed rule in general, the ANPRM presented a list of twenty questions concerning various aspects and implications of the  ;

proposed rule. Two hundred letters were received in response to tfe ANPRM. A sumary and analysis of the corrents are included in SECY 87-1012 dated i April 16, 1987. The NRC has reviewed, in deteil, all the coments made on the ,

ANPRM as well as coments received since that time. In general, except for five comenters, the preponderance of comenters were opposed to a degree requirement for senior operators. The proposed rule in this notice reflects in detail many of the comments and responses to the questions posed. Apart from

the detailed corrents on the proposed contents of the rule, a number of general, adverse coments were raised. The possible disadvantages of the proposed rule, raised by both the public corrents at well as NRC staff review, can be categorized as follows

l l l

1. The proposed rule is not necessary.

2. Experience is more important than a bachelor's degree.

I l 3. The proposed rule will Fave a negative impact on safety. ,

l J

I 4. The proposed rule will result in a greater operator turnover rate. I

5. The proposed rule will basically block the career path of  ;

I l reactor operators resulting in lower morale.  !

6. There will be less overall experience on shift due to the promotion of 50s into management positions.

i I

1 i

I i :i Enclosure D 4

• O The Advisory Comi'. tee on Reactor Safeguards ( ACRS) also considered the proposed requirement and discussed it at several meetine' '6 and 1987, j

The ACPS strongly supported the concept of having =ar .*P xpertise on each shift. They did rot agree that requiring a degree ft .,. operators was the best approach thcugh they agreed that specific technical knowledge should be required. They believed that, because of the concern about adverse effects i raised cy many knowledgeable individuals, the croposed rule should be l reconsidered, I

i 1 The Comission has carefully considered the numerous coments received on the ANPRM as well as the recomendations of the ACR5, During its deliberations subsequent to thc I?:PR" the Comission considered the following three options l regarding irproving engineering expertise en shift-l I,

1. Proceed with the conterplated degree rule and concurrent po' icy 7

] statement as proposed in the ANPRM. This option would in the long ,

term result in two Senior Operators on shif t who have bachelor's  ;

i degrees, (

I

2, Propose a rule to require a degreed individual on shift similar to a l Senior Panager, as described in SECY-84-106, "Proposed Rulemaking [

Concernirg Fequirerents for Senior Managers,'I

{

Amend the Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shift

) 3.

I (50 FR 43621) to explicitly encourage licensees to develop programs l t

leading to degrees, to utilize the cortined 50/STA option and to i

phase out use of a separate STA, l

i 1 .

l 6 Enclosure D I

i in spite of the generally unfavorable reaction to the ANPRM, the Commission believes that it would be beneficial to have a full public airing of views by putlication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and decided to proceed with Option 1.

Concurrent Policy Statement >

The Comission will publish concurrently with the final rule a policy statement which encourages nuclear power plant licensees, working with the nuclear  ;

industry, to:

1. Irplement personnel policies that emphasize the opportantties for l licensed operators to assume positions of increased management j responsibility;

2. Develop programs that would enable 'urrently licensed senior (

operators and reactor operators to obtain college degrees; end f

! 3. Obtain college credit for appropriate nuclear power plant training and work experience through arrangements with the academic sector, j i

1 l Discussion  :

{

The purpose of this proposed rule is to upgrade the operating, engineering, and accident management expertise provided on shift by combining both engineering expertise and operating experience in the senior operator function. The NRC l believes this will enhance the capability of the operating staff to analyze and respond to cceplex transients and accidents and thereby further ensure the protection of the health and safety of the public.  !

I i

7 Enclosure D r l

l 4

The NRC is concerned that operator qualifications to deal with accidents beyono ,

design basis conditions warrant improvement. Operator training programs and i related emergency operating procedures generally do not consider accident {

conditions beyond inadequate core cooling. There is a general consensus that

, well qualified operators car, substantially ritigate the effects of severe j accidents. The Industry Degraded Core Rulemaking Program (!DCOR) industry group, for example, has developed arguments that operators could substantially reduce the risk posed by these cent v... The fiRC is considering the need for j i

t j more extensive severe accident trat'. a and emergency operating procedures as l i

well as engineering qualifications for senior operators.

1 i

j j The policy statement on engineering expertise on shift publi V M the Federal l

) pegister en October 28, 1985 (50 FR 43621) provided an interim method of l i

i achieving more engineering capability on shift. Essentially the ? RC is moving 7 1

from interim requirements which provide engineering capability for accident I i i conditions (the STA), to requiring engineering capability, and nuclear power l

! plant operating experience, in the same individual (the 50).

[

1, This proposed rule would ren tre each applicant fer a Senior 0;erator (50) l license to operate a nuclear power reactor, after [4 years following the l effectivedateoftherule),tohaveabachelor'sdegreeinengineering,  !

t engineering technology, or the physical sciences from an accredited university l o

or college. Degree equivalency will no longer be accepted. An accredited  ;

] i

)

university or college is defined as an educational institution in the United j States which has been approved by a regional accrediting body, f l

r 1

i l

, t

]

8 Enclosure D ,

The proposed rule would apply only to applicants for a S0 to operate a nuclear power reactor. People who held S0 licenses on [4 years following the effective date of the rule] would be exempt from the degree requirement. Furthermore, the proposed rule would not apply to S0 applicants for non-power nuclear reactors such as research and test reactors. Licensed reactor operators (R0s) would not be require to have a degree. Thus, those persons who are senior operators on [4 years following the effective date of the rule], would be "grandfc.thered" (i.e. , a lifetime exemption) by the proposed rule. Even if they were to lose their 50 license in the future, e.g. due to a change in jobs or plants, they could still reapply for a new S0 license without atisfying the degree requirement. It is recognized that "grandfathering" current S0s could result in 50s without degrees for an extended period of time. Since the Commissions' inter.t is to maintain at least the same degree of engineerina expertise on shif t as currently exists, the STA policy described under options 1 and 2 in the October 28, 1985 policy statement (50 FR 43621) would continue in effect. Thus, if two "grandfathered" S0s are used on shift, the facility licensee would be required to have a separate indivicual on shift who has the STA education and experience described in HUREG-0737. If one of the 50s has a degree and one is "grandfathered," Option 1 of the policy statement would be satisfied. When all S0s have degrees, the policy statement would no longer be needed.

The concurrent policy statement will encourage previously licensed S0s to obtain degrees. In the past the NRC has accepted "equivalents" to the bachelor's degree for a separate STA. The equivalents were based upon 9 Enclosure D

.. r specialized utility training or other work experiences. For the proposed rule, howe.er, equivalency would not be acceptable to the NRC in lieu of a degree.

Because the Commission is not in a position to evaluate the academic  ;

equivalency of utility training, it encourages utilities to seek out academic institutiens who will evaluate the training programs and grant course credit l for such equivalency based upon work experience or specialized training. Thus the concurrent policy statement will encourage efforts to have the training accepted by the colleges for partial credit toward fulfilling the requirements of an accredited degree, t

I The degree requirement would not apply to licensed reactor operators (R0s).

However, the concurrent policy statement will encou"age R0s to obtain degrees so that they can progress to the 50 position and to other utility positions.

The Comission believes a degree requirement for S0s on shift, along with the concurrent policy statement will not only enhance p%1ic health and safety, but will also provide a route for promoting S0s.

The cutoff date of four years following the effective date of the rule for application for a S0 license by individuals who do not have degrees is chosen for three reasons. First, it will allow operators now in training sufficient i time and notice to complete a degree before application. Second, it should not cause undue hardship on operators who are now in the process of preparing and training for the senior operator license, and third, licensees have been l encouraged by the Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shif t (Option 1) to move toward a dual-role 50/STA position. Furthermore, those operators who are licensed as 50s on the cutoff date would be "grandfathered."

10 Enclosure D '

8 ti The proposed rule would also require one year of "hot" and at least 2 years total operating experience for each applicant for a 50 license. A R0 license is required in order to get "hot" control room operating experience; thus, the proposed rule expands the current NRC policy, described in Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, dated April 1987, "Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," to ensure that degreed S0s have sufficient operating experience. Regulatory Guide 1.8, in position C.1.e., allows an applicant for a S0 license with a degree to have only 2 years of responsible power plant experience, none of which needs to be as a reactor operator. Thus, Regulatory Guide 1.8 will be revised if the proposed rule is adopted. The proposed rule would require the 50 applicant with a degree to serve as a R0 at greater than 20% power for at least 1 year. This does not mean that the reactor must be at power 100% of the time during the year, however, the 1 year time period should not include periods of significant down time for maintenance or refueling (i.e.,periodsthatexceed6weeksduration). Special provisions are proposed in order to accommodate those applicants from facilities that are unable to operate above twenty percent power due either to (a) the facilities not having completed their initial startup program and being licensed to run at power, or (b) the facilities being in an extended shutdown mode. In the case of the j facilities not yet licensed to run at power, alternative approaches to meet the twenty percent power requirement may be approved by the Comission. In the case of facilities in extended shutdown, the Commission 'nay process the [

application and administer the written and operating tests but would defer

, issuance of the senior operating license until the twenty percent power requirement is fulfilled.

11 Enclosure 0

I

. , l This proposed requirenent for a 50 applicant with a degree also implies that an applicant for a R0 with a degree must only have 1 year of related nuclear power plant experience. This is a change to the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.8 which indicates that a R0 applicant nest have a minimum of 3 years of power plant experience of which at least 1 year shall be nuclear power experience.

If the proposed rule is adopted it would supersede the guidance in Regulatory Guide 1.8 and necessitate its revisicn in accord with the rule. Also, position C.1.d of Regulatory Guide 1.8, on educational criteria, would have to be revised to reflect this rule. The above requirement is proposed because it is essential that the 50 know and understand plant operations as well as the thenretical, engineering, 3nd accident management aspects of the position.  ;

l The concurrent policy statement is intended to encourage licensees (utilitics) 1 and the nuclear industry to provide incentives and management opportunities for

50s as well as to improve the engineering capabilities of the on shift crew. l The 50 with a degree and shift operating experience can become a valuable personnel resuurce for the utility, one who combines shift operational  !

! nanagement experience with the potential for greater management responsibility.

The policy statement, among other things, will encourage licensees to provide that career path.

l The Commission believes that requiring a degree will contribute to the goal of having 50s who have operational experience, technical and academic knowledge, I and educational credentials that should improve their performance as operators f and possibly open career paths from which they may have been excluded in the l

12 Enclosure D

past. The 50s with a degree should be able to respond better to off normal incidents. While there will be increased training to cover accident conditions, T

training alone is not sufficient. It is impossible to cover every eventuality during training. The operators must have sufficient understanding of basic engineering principles, and detailed knowledge of nuclear design and operation to appropriately respond to situations that have not been previously covered in training sessions, in addition, S0s with degrees will have greater opportunity for professional growth since they will have the qualifications needed to advance to managerial positions. With the chance for personal growth should come greater job satisfaction. The validity of these beliefs has been reenforced by the experiences of licensed operators participating in an ongoing ,

utility sponsored program similar to what is being proposed herein. The l

Commission also believes that migration of S0s upward into plant management will contribute to improved plant safety, r

Although the Commission believes there is a net benefit of the proposed rule in enhancing public health and safety, it acknowledges that this judgement is based on a qualitative assessment of the relative contributions of various  ;

factors, sone with potential positive impacts and others with potential negative impacts. The most significant positive factor is the enhanced capability of the shif t operating staff 'to effectively manage accidents.

Increased operatino experience of plant management is also an anticipated i

However, there are possible disadvantages including longer term benefit.

1) the potential for lower morale among reactor operators without degrees  ;

whose natural career paths, promotion to the 50 level, are blocked, and 2) the i potential reduction of overall operating experience on shift as 50s with  ;

degrees move to other work.  !

i 13 Enclosure D

. l Upon consideration of these and other factors, such as those identified by the public coment process on the ANPRM, the Comission con:ludes, at this time, that the overall effect of the proposed rule would be beneficial and would result in greater plant safety. This benefit will be achieved over time by improved quality of the operational personnel and by plant management that has a better understanding of the unique operational problems associated with j nuclear power reactor operations.

Environmental lapact--Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determined that this proposed regulation is the type of action describedincategoricalexclusion10CFR51.22(c)(1). Therefore neither an

]

f environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed regulation.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement i

This proposed rule contains no information ecliection requirements and therefore is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C 3501 et seq.). l 4

l t ,

Regulatory Analysis  ;

i l I The Comission has prepared a draf t regulatory analysis for this proposed j regulation. The analysis examines the costs and benefits of the alternatives j considered by the Comission. The draf t regulatory analysis is available for l l

i 14 Enclosure D ,

l l

inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC. Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from M. R.

Fleishman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301)492-3794. ,

The Cornission requests public comment on the draf t analysis. Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES ,

heading.

Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the  ;

Commission certifies that this rule, if adopted, will not have a significant I economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants. It also affects individuals licensed as operators at these plants. The companies that own these plants and the individual plant employees licensed to operate them do not fall within the scope of the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121.

Since these companies are dominant in their service areas, this proposed rule does not fall within the purview of the Act.

15 Enclosure D

However, because there may be now or in the future small entities which will provide licensed operators to nuclear power plants on a contractual basis. the NRC is specifically seeking coment as to how the regulation will affect them and how the repulation may be tiered or otherwise modified to impose less stringent requirements on them while still adequately protecting the public health and safety. Those small entities which offer coments on how the regulation could be modified to take into account the differing needs of small entities should specifically discuss the following items:

(a) The size of their business and how the proposed regulation would result in a significant economic burden upon them as compared to larger organizations in the same business comunity.

(b) How the proposed regulation could be modified to take into account their differing needs or capabilities.

(c) The benefits that would accrue, or the detriments that would be avoided, ,

if the proposed regulation was modified as suggested by the comenter.

(d) how the proposed regulation, as modified, would more closely equalize the impact of NRC regulations or create more equal access to the benefits of Federal programs as opposed to providing special advantages to any individuals or groups.

(e) How the proposed regulation, as modified, would still adequately protect the public health and safety.

The coments should be sent to the Secretary of the Comission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Attn: Docketing and Service Branch.

16 Enclosure D

. e j

The proposed rule would apply only to applicants for a S0 to operate a l

nuclear power reactor. PeoplewhoheldS0licenseson[4yearsfollowing the effective date of the rule] would be exempt from the degree requircecnt. Furthermore, the proposed rule would not apply to 50 applicants for non-power nuclear reactors such as research and test reactors. Licensedreactoroperators(R0s)wouldnotberequiredtohave a degree. Thus, those persons who are senior operators on [4 years following the effective date of the rule) would be "grandfathered" by the proposed rule. The proposed rule would also require one year of "hot" 1

(i.e. as an R0 at greater than 20% power) and at least 2 years total

operating experience for each applicant for a 50 license. Special i provisions would be proposed to accommodate those applicants from facilities that are unable to operate above 20% power, ,

i The proposed requirements would only apply to power reactor licensees indirectl.y. There would be no modification of or addition to the 4

organization, i.e. administrative and functional structure, required to operate a nuclear power reactor as a result of this proposed rule because:

i. the person to whom the 50s report would not change; [

ii. the number of S0s per shift would not change; iii. the total number of operators per shift would not change; iv. the training requirements, written examinations and operating tests for a 50 would not change; and

v. the tasks performed by a 50 would not change. [

[

I

(

18 Enclosure D ,

I

Backfit Analysis As required by 10 CFR 50.109, the Commission has completed a backfit analysis for the proposed rule. The Commission has determined, based on this analysis, that backfitting to comply with the requirements of this_ proposed rule will provide a substantial increase in protection to public health and safety or the common defense and security at a cost which is justified by the substantial increase. The backfit analysis on which this determination is based reads as follows:

1. Statement of the specific objectives that the proposed backfit is designed to achieve.

The objective of the proposed rule is to upgrade the operating, engineering, and accident management expertise provided on shift by combining both engineering expertise and operating experience in the senior operator function.

2. General description of the activitL that would be required by the licensec or epplicant in order to cceplete the backfit.

This proposed rule would require each applicant for a Senior Operator (50) license to operate a nuclear power reactor, after [4 years following the effectivedateoftherule),tohaveabachelor'sdegreeinengineering, engineering technology, or the physical sciences from an accredited university or college. Degree equivalency will no longer be accepted. An accredited university or college is defined as an educational institution in the United States which has been approved by a regional accrediting body, 17 Enclosure D

.. c o

+. .

However, the power reactor licenses would have to.get new S0s from a group of individuals who already have apprcpriate degrees or else provide the educational opportunity for their own employees to obtain a degree.

3. Potential change in the risk '.n the public from the accidental off-site release of radioactive material.

1 It is not feasible to quantitatively evaluate the change in risk to the public as a result of the proposed rule. That is, the ef."ect of the 50 on the probability and consequences of an accident, and the change in the probability and consequences of an accident as a result of requiring the

S0 to have a bachelor's degree is unknown. The Comission believes that requiring a degree will contribute to the goal of having S0s who have f operational experience, technisai and academic knowledge, and educational I credentials that should improve their performance as operators and f possibly open career paths from which they may have been excluded in the I

j past. The 50s with a degree should be able to respond better to off normal incidents. While there will be increased training to cover accident conditions, training alone is not sufficient. It is impossible to cover every eventuality during training. The operators must have sufficient understanding of basic engineering principles, and detailed l

knowledge of nuclear design and operation to appropriately respond to situations that have not been previously covered in training sessions, in addition, 50s with degrees will have greater opportunity for professional 19 Enclosure D

growth since they will have the qualifications needed to advance to  !

managerial positions. The Commission believes that there will also be  ;

an impr0vement in plant safety as 50s migrate upwarri inte plant management although this improvement could be counter balar.ced, in part, by a potential reduction in overall operating experience on shift as 50s with degrees move to other work.

4 Potential impact on radiological exposure of facility employees.

There is not expected to be any significant change in the radiological

exposure of facility employees due to the proposed rt,le except for the uncuantifiable reduction in the probability and consequtoces of an accident and the subsequent reduction in exposure, j 5. Installation and continuing costs associated with the backfit, including the cost of facility downtime or the cost of construction delay.

l One of the questions posed in the May 30, 1986 ANPRM concerned what the implerrentation and operation costs of the proposed rule to the utilities

, would be. The cost estimates received ranged from negligible to prohibitive. Various scenarios for achieving the desired staffing level

of S0s with degrees were assumed. These varied from hiring individuals

with degrees and passing them thru the normal utility training programs to j taking R0s and sending them to college while either paying them at

! overtime ;*ates or hiring replacement R0s. A utility could also implement l

20 Enclosure D l

t

a 9

an onsite college degree program for its operators, for example, a program currently being run for an operating plant costs $250,000 per year to train 60 people. The range of costs of such an onsite program are estimated to vary from $250,000 to $480,000 per year.

It is clear that there are numerous methods that con be used to implement ,

the proposed rule with an extreme range of costs depending on the method adopted. It would be a utility's choice as to which method to adopt, l takino into account the various cost and personnel considerations.

6. The potential safcty impact of changes in plant or operational complexity, ,

includina the effect on other proposeri and existing regulatory requirements. ,

l There would be no change:; in the plant or operation; . complexity and hence, no potential safety impact related to them. However, there would i be an effect on the guidance provided in Regulatory Guide 1.8. Current quidance in Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, April 1987, "Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," allows a degreed I

applicant for a 50 license to have only 2 years of responsible power plant experience, none of which needs to be as a reactor operator. This would  ;

l have to be revised if the proposed rule went into effect since the proposed rule would require a 50 applicant with a degree to serve as a RO i at greater than 20% power for at least 1 year. Furthermore, the guidance indicates that a R0 applicant must have a minimum of 3 years of power plant experience of which at least 1 year shall be nuclear power experience.

l 7

l  !

l 21 Enclosure D j

l

.__ .._ -~

This would have to be revised since it 'is inconsistent with the proposed  :

rule which implies that an applicant for a RO with a degree must only have a 1 year of related nuclear power plant experience. Finally, position C.I.d  ;

of the Regulatory Guide would have to be revised to indicate that a bachelor's degree is the minimum educational requirenent for a 50 candidate rather than a h'gh school diploma.

7. The estimated resource burden in the NRC associated with the propose,d (

backfit and the availability of such resources.

It is anticipated that there will be relatively minor impact on NRC staff ,

resources as a result of implementing the proposed rule. There may be some increase in the number of applications to process and tests to administer, due to the atterpts of current R0s to become 50s prior to the j

cut-off date, but this should not cause a significant impact on the NRC staff. No new resource requirements are expected.

I

8. The potential impact of differences in facility type, design or age _on j the relevancy ard practicality of the proposed backfit.

The proposed rule only applies to 50 applicants for operation of a nuclear ,

! r ower reactor. It does not apply to 50 applicants for non-power nuclear  ;

I  :

! reactors such as research and test reactors. The facility type, design or l f

l age should have no relevancy to the impact or practicality of the proposed l

backfit. Of more significance would be the degree to which each utility l

! licensee has already implemented an educational program. Those facilities [

i l

which have implemented such a program will clearly be less affected by the proposed backfit than would those facilities that have not. l i

i 22 Enclosure 0  ;

I t

. _ . _ - . - _ _ - .__ i

• O

9. Whether the proposed backfit is interim or final and, if interim, the justification for imposing the proposed backfit on an interim basts.

The proposed rule, when made effective, would be done so in final form and not on an interim basis.

List of Subjec'.s in 10 CFR Part 55 Hanpower training programs, nuclear power plants and reactors, penalty, reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following l amendments to 10 CFR Part 55.

s PART 55 - OPERATORS' LICENSES

1. The authority citation for Part 55 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Secs. 107, 161, 182, 68 Stat. 939, 948, 953, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2137, 2201, 2232, 2282); secs.

i 201, as amended, 202, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244 (42 U.S.C. 5841, l 5842).

23 Enclosure D

Sections 55.41, 55.43, 55.45, and 55.59 also issued under sec. 306, Pub.

L.97-425, 96 Stat. 2262 (42 U.S.C. 10226). Section 55.61 also issued under secs. 186, 107, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2236, 2237).

For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);

55.3, 55.21, 55.49, and 55.53 are issued under sec. 1611, 68 Stat. 949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and 55.9, 55.23, 55.25, and 55.53(f) are issued under sec. 1610, C8 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(o)).

2. In 155.4, a rew definition is added in alphabetical order to read as fr>11cws :

555.4 Definitions.

"Accredited university or college" means an educational institution in the Urlted States which has been approved by a regional accrediting body.

l 3. In 155.31, a new paragraph (e) is added to read as follows:

155.31 Hcw to apply.

(e)Each applicant for a senior operator license to operate a nuclear power 24 Enclosure D

. i P

l reactor, af ter [4 years following the effective date of the rule], must have a bachelor's degree in engineering, engineering technology, or the physical l sciences from an accredited university or college. In addition, except as noted in paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section, after [4 years folloving the effective date of the rule], each applicant for a senior operator license l l

must have at least two years of operating experience at a nuclear power plant, of which one years' experience must be as a licensed control room operator for 4

a nuclear power reactor orerating at greater than twenty percent power. At 1 least six months of the nuclear power plant experience trust be at the plant for which the applicant seeks the license. An authorized representative of the facility licensee will verify that the requirements of this paragraph have been met as a part of certifyir.c the applicant's qualifications pursuant to paragraph (a)(4) of this section. Any person holding a senior operator license on[4yearsfollovingtheeffectivedateoftherule]isexemptfromthe requirement to have a bachelor's degree.

4 (1) For each applicant fron a facility that has not completed preoperational testing and an initial startup test program as described in its Final Safety l

Analysis Perort, as arended and approved by the Comission, and has not yet

! been licensed to operate at power, the Comission may approve alternatives that provide experience equivalent to opration at twenty percent power.

I l

l (2) For each applicant from a facility that has (i) completed preoperational i testing as described in its Final Safety Analysis Report, as amended and i

approved by the Comission, and (ii) is in an extended shutdown which precludes I

25 Enclosure D l

operation at greater than twenty percent power, the Commission may process the application and may administer the written examination and operating test required by 655.43 and 555.45 of this part, but may not issue the license until the required evidence of operation at greater than twenty percent power is supplied.

Dated at Rockville, MD this , day of , 1988.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1

l l

Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission, t

i 1

26 Enclosure D

8 4 e

e I

ii 6

l l

ENCLOSURE E

'i i

r l

I k

)

j ,

I L I

< E I t i

1 I

d I j l l

8 i

i I

L 1

1 i

J 4

l i

Regulatory Analysis for Deg te Requirement for Senior Reactor Operators  ;

1. Stater.ent fr. ":he Problent 1.1 Bacy,rcand ,

l Since the Three Mile Island Unit (THI-2) accident on March 28, 1979, in (

which human error, among other factors, contributed to the consequences l of the accident, the issue of academic requirements for reactor operators has been a major concern of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC). In July 1979, "TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force Status Report and Short-Term Recommendations," (NUREG-0578) made specific recomendations for a Shif t Technical Advisor (STA) to provide engineering and accident assessment expertise during other than normal operating conditions. On October 30, 1979, the NRC notified all operating nuclear power licensees

{

of the short-term STA requirements, i.e., that STAS should be on shift by  !

i January 1980, and that they should be fully trained by January 1981. In l November 1980, "Clarification of TMI Action plan Requirements "  !

! (NUREG-0737), provided further details to licensees regarding L

i I

! implementation of the STA position.

l 1

4 i

l  !

l [

l 1 Enclosure E 7

The qualifications of operators were also addressed by the 1979, "Lessons Learned Task Force," (NUREG-0585), the 1980 Rogovin report, "Three Mile Island: A Report to the Comissioners and to the Public,"

. NUREG/CR-1240), and the 1982, "Report of the Peer Advisory Panel and the l t

Muclear Regulatory Lommission on Operator Qualifications," (SECY 82-162).  !

l The consensus among these reports was that greater technical and academic j l knowledge among shift operating personnel would be beneficial to the safety of nuclear power plants.

l l l

j Cn October 20, 1985, the NRC published in the Federal Register t

(50 FR 43621) a final policy statement on engineering expertise on shift. Option 1 of the Policy Statement permits an individual to serve [

l in the combined Senior Operator / Shift Technical Advisor (SO/STA) role if  ;

4 i

that individual holds either a bachelor's degree in engineering, i engineering technology, physical science, or a professional engineer's i license. Option 2 permits continuation of the separate STA who rotates

! with the shift and holds a bachelor's degree or equivalent and meets the  !

l

criteria as stated in, "Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," l (NUREG-0737). The Comission also encouraged the shift supervisor to i serve in the dual-role position, and the STA to take an active role in j shift activities.

J  !

I j On May 30, 1986, the NRC published an advance notice of proposed l

. t

) rulemaking (ANPRM) (51 FR 19561). The purpose of the ANPRM was to extend j 1 t l the current level of engineering expertise on shift, as described in the l f j Comission's Policy Statement on Engineering Expertise on Shif t i

li i i

I i

i 2 Enclosure E i  !

. . j 6

(50FR43621)andtoensurethatsenioroperatorshaveoperating  !

t experience on a comercial nuclear reactor operating at greater tiian j twenty percent power, e.g., "hot" operating experience (Generic i

Letter 84-16). The ANPRM was the result of a Comission decision to l consider an amendment to its regulations (Parts 50 and 55) and to obtain j coments on the contemplated action to upgrade the levels of operating, ,

i engineering, and accident management expertise on shift. l

[

[

The Comission has carefully considered the numerous coments received on  !

the ANPret as well as the recomendations of the Advisory Comittee on l Reactor Safeguards. The Comission believes that it would be beneficial to have a full public airing of views by publication of a notice of proposed ruleraking.

i f

1.2 Discussion of Proposed Rulemaking j I

This proposed rule would require each applicant for a Senior Operator f

(50) license to operate a nuclear power reactor, af ter [4 years following 1 t

theeffectivedateoftherule),tohaveabachelor'sdegreeit, engineering, engineering technology, or tiie physical sciences from an accredited ur.iversity or college. Degree equivalency will no longer be i accepted. An accredited university or college is defined as an educational f institution in the United States which has been approved by a regional accrediting body, j f

i f

l r

f 3 Enclosure E j r

1 .

=.

i 4

The proposed rule would' apply only to applicants for a 50 to operate a ,

i-nuclear power reactor. People who held 50 licenses on [4 years following t

theeffectivedateoftherule]wouldbeexemptfromthedegree l i requirement. Furthermore, the proposed rule would not apply to 50 [

1 applicants for non-power nuclear reactors sur.h as research and test t reactors. Licensed reactor operators (R0s) would not be required to have .

2 r e degree. Thus, those persons who are senior operators on [4 years  !

following the effective date of the rule) would be "grandfathered" by ,

the proposed rule. The proposed rule would also require one year of <

J "hot" and at least 2 years total operating experience for each applicant

! for a 50 license. Table 1 presents a comparison of the current

! ?ducation and experience requirements for a 50 with those that would be

i i in effect if the proposed rule was enacted. ,

! l i l I

2.0 Objectives ,.

r 1

. I i  !

i The objective of the proposed rule is to upgrade the operating,

! engineering, and accident management expertise provided on shift by corrbining both engineering expertise and operating experience in the senior operator function. The NRC believes that having personnel on shift

{

with enhanced qualificetions further ensures the protection of the health (

t j and safety of the public. (

s t

}  !

I I

! f j i i

1 i l 4 Enclosure E  !

1 F i I

4 O e

7ABLE 1. COMPARISON OF S0 RE0l'IREMENTS Current Proposed Edu ation H.S. Diploma or Equivalent Bachelor's Degree Experience w/o degree - 4 years responsible power plant Must have 50 license experience including 2 years on cut-off date nuclear plant experience.

- 6 months at specific plant for license

- R0 license for 1 year w/ degree - 2 years responsible nuclear power 2 years responsible plant experience nuclear power plant experience including 1 year as RO* at greater than 20% power  ;

- 6 months at specific plant for 6 months at license (not ccunting training specific plant for time) license (not counting training tire)

• Note: These requirerents imply that a person with a degree may becore a RO with only 1 year of responsible nuclear power plant experience plus the necessary training time.

i 5 Enclosure E

l

• l

3. Alternatives t i

Three alternative approaches were considered by the Comission during its 1

deliberations on the proposed rule following publication of the ANPRM. >

4 The Commission decided to proceed with the contemplated degree rule and ,

concurrent policy statement as proposed in the ANPRM. This would in the ,

long term result in two Senior Operators on shift who have bachelor's degrees.

i l l

l 4 Consequences ,

1 l

l 4.1 Benefits  ;

It is not feasible to quantitatively evaluate the consequences of the ,

proposed rule. That is, the effect of the 50 on the probability and

! consequences of an accident, and the change in the probability and (

consequences of an accident as a result of requiring the 50 to have a l

l bachelor's degree is unknown. The Comission believes that requiring a ,

degree will contrit.ute to the goal of having 50s who have operational )

L l experience, technical and academic knowledge, and educational credentials i  :

that should improve their performance as operators and possibly open

] '

j career paths from which they may have been excluded in the past. The 50s

i

! should be able to respond better to off normal incidents. While there (

l will be increated training to cover accident conditions, training alone l 1s not sufficient. It is impossible to cover every eventuality during l

) l l

training. The operators rust have sufficient understanding of basic  !

l l I

i 1

6 Enclosure E

engineering principles, and detailed knowledge of nuclear design and  :

operation to appropriately respond to situations that have not been {

previously covered in training sessions. In addition, 50s with degrees will have greater opportunity for professional growth since they will have ,

the qualifications needed to advance to managerial positions. With the chance for persJnci growth should come greater job satisfaction. The validity of these beliefs has been re-enforced by the experiences of licensed operators participating in an ongoing utility sponsored program similar to what is being proposed herein. The Commission also believes a

that there will be a net improvement in plant safety if 50s migrate upward j I

into plant management although this improvement could be counter balanced, j in part, by a potential reduction in overall operating experience on shift  !

$ as 50s with degrees move to other work. Requiring 50s with degrees may i

! result in fewer people in the control room, since a separate STA would not  !

j be needed, with a conconitant cost saving.

i t

, t

! 4.2 Costs [

)  !

I I l One of the questions posed in the ANPRM concerned what the irplementation f and operation costs of the proposed b to the utilities would be. The i

{ i j cost estimates received ranged from negligible to prohibitive. Various  !

l i scenarios for achieving the desired staffing level of S0s with degrees .

1

} were assumed. These varied from hiring individuals with degrees and '

I

} passing then thru the normal utility training programs to taking R0s and l t

t l sending them to college while either paying them at overtime rates or 4

hiring replacement R0s. A util!ty could also implement an onsite college 4  !

j  !

! 7 Enclosure E ,

i

)

l ,

degree program for its operators, for example, a program currently being run for an operating plant costs $250,00 per year to' train 60 people. The range of costs of such an onsite program are estimated to vary from j r

$250,000 to $480,000 per year.

[

it is clear that there are numerous methods that can be used to implement ,

the propos6d rule with an extreme range of costs depending on the method ,

, adopted. It would be a utility's choice as to which method to adopt,

taking into account the various cost and personnel considerations. For purposes of this regulatory analysis, a representative cost to a utility I is estimated to be about $500,000 per year, a

j l1

5. Decision Rationale s

l While the benefits of the proposed rule cannot be directly quantified, the f 4 i

< Commission believes that the degree program should result in greater plant  !

I j safety. This benefit will be achieved over time by improved quality of  ;

l I

l the operational personnel and by plant management that has a better j i

! understanding of the unique operational problems associated with nuclear i l power reactor operations, f t

! k I I l 6. Implementation

' I t

6.1 Schedule I l

No implementation problems are now anticipated in view of the fact that  !

the date for which the program would start has been changed to 4 years l i

l Enclosure E I 8

, i i

af ter the effective date of the final published rule (i.e., usually 30 l days after publication in the Federal Register). This should be ample time for all affected parties to either decide upon and implement their j upgrade program or obtain an appropriate degree.

6.2 Relationship to other Existing or Proposed Requirements ,

1 Current guidance '.n Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, April 1987, l "Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," l allows an-applicant for a 50 license with a degree to have only 2 years of responsible power plant experience, none of which needs to be as a reactor operator. This would have: to be revised if the pronosed rule went into effect sir.ce the proposed rule would require a 50 applicant with a degree f to serve as a RO at greater than 20% power for a least 1 year. Futhermore, the guidance indicates that a R0 applicant must have a minimum of 3 years

! of power plant experience of which at least 1 year shall be nuclear power l

experience. This would have to be revised since it is inconsistent with r the proposed rule which implies that an applicant for a RO with a degree l t

l must only Fa e 1 year of related nuclear power plant experience. Finally, l c

\

i position C.1.d of the Regulatory Guide would have to be revised to indicate l

i that a bachelor's degree is the minimum educational requirement for a 50 3

! candidate rather than a high school diploma. j i I i i l

f 1

t

! I i i l

l 9 Enclosure E l l

% Wd%%%%%%%%%%%%%%d%%d%%%%W/d%%ffffff g g gig,g

! TPANSHITTAL TO: X Document Control Desk. 016 Phillips T

ADVANCED COPY TO: The Public Document Roem DATE: 9/9/8[

SECY Correspondance & Records Branch l FROM:

i Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting i document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accassion List and placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or f, required.

l Meeting

Title:

bM, N WM M jhbL MCM

/

Meeting Date: _

9/7/F7 r /

Open X Closed Item Description *: Copies '

l Advanced DCS to POR g *8 i

1 1 ll 1. TkANSCRIPT U a)/wlw- g& '

l ,

s -

i h z. A d'- H - > / r' _dL /

Ii J !

3. .

S l w

4.

! LL

i j _

S. . _ _ _

a: =

3  ;

j  ; 6.

0 2

SL

• POR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper. ..

5 -

C&R Brcnch files the original transcript, with attscheents, withcut SECY J- ,

g papers.

i g

a - . - - 3 I -

s l lb

, l lll I l l l I I i Ii

__- . .. . __ _. .-