ML20246L918
| ML20246L918 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 08/08/1989 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Kerrey B SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20246L924 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR52716, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-55 CCS, NUDOCS 8909070062 | |
| Download: ML20246L918 (3) | |
Text
- - -
F.l UNITED STATES fif. [
p,
' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION v
5
- j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20$55 Q'.....f W
August 8,1989
(
The Honorable Bob Kerrey United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Kerrey:
Your constituent, Mr. Jeffrey W. Boyd, inquired about an-amendment that we have recently proposed to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's regulations.
This proposed amerdment was entitled " Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants," and it contains two alternatives. The alternatives proposed in the Federal Register notice would entail additional education and experience requirements for either senior operators or control room supervisors.
In consideration of the many coments received on the proposed amendment, including those of Mr. Boyd, the Commission has concluded that it should with-draw the proposed amendment. The Comission will publish a policy statement in the near future that describes its policy regarding education for senior operators and shift supervisors at nuclear power plants and a notice of with-drawal of the proposed amendment. As you are aware, a policy statement does not have the force of law. The Comission believes a policy statement is acceptable because'of the progress being made by utilities to voluntarily obtain engineering expertise on shift, and industry initiatives both to in-crease professionalism of the operating staff and to. review training and edu-cation requirements for shift supervisors. The policy statement and notice of withdrawal should appear in the Federal Register in August.
I trust that the above information is responsive to your request.
Sincerely, J
f' M? Nr Jam M. Taylor
'7 A
ng Executive Direct i
for Operations
Enclosure:
j Ltr 1/17/89 Mr. Boyd to j
Sen. Kerrey
{
i CcS7 i
Ml. TEXT Awa scan 8909070062 890808 PDR ORG NE ED
)
'e-s."
August 8,1989 The Honorable Bob'Kerrey United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Kerrey:
Your constituent, Mr. Jeffrey W. Boyd, inquired about an amendment that we have recently proposed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations.
This proposed amendment was entitkd " Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Reector Operators and Supervisors at Fuclear Power Plants," and it contains two alternatives. The alternatives proposed in the Federal Pegister notice would entail additional education and experience requirements for either senior operators or control room supervisors.
In consideration of the many comments received on the proposed amendment, including those of fir. Boyd, the Comission has concluded that it shculd with-draw the proposed an:endment. The Commission will publish a policy statement in the near future that describes its policy regarding Education for senior operators and shift supervisors at nuclear power plants and a notice of with-drawal of the proposed amendment. As you are aware, a policy statement does not have the force of law. The Comission believes a policy statement is acceptable because of the progress being made by utilities to voluntarily obtain engineering expertise on shift, and industry initiatives both to in-crease professionalism of the cperating staff and to review training and edu-cation requirements for shift supervisors. The policy statement and notice of withdrawal should appear in the Federal Register in August.
I trust that the above information is responsive to your request.
Sincerely, Ori ini 32<.nl by
?
Hugh L W.mn 9.
' " James M. Taylor Acting Executive Cirector for Operatiens
Enclosure:
- See previous concurrence Ltr 1/17/89 Nr. Boyd to Sen. Kerrey DISTRIBUTION:
See page 2 Offc: RDB:DRA:RES RDB:CRA:RES Name: *MFleishman
- JTelford Date: 7/26/89 7/27/89
-[ h-Offe: RDB:DRA DRA:RES DRA:RES DD/GRI:RES D:RES EDO W OCA Name: *SBehadur
- ZRosztoczy *BMorris
- TPSpeis
- ESBeckjord JTaylor DRothbun Date: 7/27/89 7/27/89 7/28/89 7/31/89 7/31/69 6/7/89 8/ /89 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
- L a.
p
,4 Jaffary U. Bsyd 1606 24'th db811 Auburn, Ne. 68305 Jan. 13, 1989 The Honorable Bob Kerrey Senate Office Building i
Washington D. C. 20510-
Dear Senator Kerrey,
Again, we are asked for our views, ideas, and concerns with respect to the NRC
. proposed rule ~ change of educational requirements for Licensed Operators.
I personally have participated in no. fewer than four of these type of studies in recent years.
I for one am an proponent of the " Great American System",-but eventually one gets his fill! Enough is enought I have been in meeting with Mr.
Paul Collins, a past employee of the NRC, currently working for KMC.
KMC did their own study on this subject, and NPPD provided some of the input. PROS 'the
" Professional Reactor Operator's Society" has done their own study, and I participated in that study.
I was part of a vast movement of licensed operators from all over the USA who personally wrote their Congressmen on this subject. All studies of which I participated in overwhelmingly were against the requirement of requiring a degree for licensed operators.
Between then and now, INPO the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations has entered the scene on this same subject and Mr. Zack Pate President of INPO, has publicly posed his views on the subject.
Mr. Pate is an advocate of patterning the program after the FAA's (Federal Aviation Administration). You will note that the FAA doesn't require commercial airline pilots the have a degree also.
The " Generic Fundamentals" section of the Hot License is patterned after the FAA's fundamental requirements. Also, I have included a short article from the Fall 1967 edition of the " Communicator" which is published by PROS.
In this article, Chairman Zech is quoted as recognizing that an individual does not need a degree to be an operator, but feels that a degree requirement will ultimately improve plant safety by prompting utilities to utilize existing operating experience in an upper management capacity. The Chairman remains an advocate of a degree requirement even though he acknowledges the strong opposition expressed via public comment on last year's Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The previous Proposed Rulemaking referred to had an alternative that did not require a degree.
The most recent proposed change has not given a non-degree alternative, therefore I consider it to be unacceptable.- I believe the most recent communique to be a " bureaucratic two step" because any available choice still has the degree within. Naturally, if I have to, I would pick the second alternative, because it has the least impact on the Nuclear community of which we all belong.
I have some questions. What are the Commissioner's educat'onal qualifications. Will this bring in people from outside the industry and mainstream
. them into the most rapid advancement programs that can be done, which will cause stagnation of experience talent.
I don't understand why the Chairman, whom I have
. personally met in the CNS control room, can't require the management personnel to have licenses if that is in fact his desire, as quoted above.
In closing, it is intuitively obvious that I do not welcome nor do I support the present proposed rule change.
I feel we are caught up in a bureaucratic process which naturally leaves we, the non-degreed populate the underdog.
I guess you really can't fight City Hall. As always, I remain.
Respectfully yours, dE f vL4 Jeffrey W. Boyd Senior Reactor Operator No Baccalaureate
_