ML20247B548

Responds to Constituent J Boyd Inquiries Re Proposed Amend to Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants

ML20247B548
Person / Time
Issue date:	02/22/1989
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Exon J SENATE
Shared Package
ML20247B554	List: ML20247B548 ML20248B831
References
CCS, NUDOCS 8903290420
Download: ML20247B548 (13)

Text

.

acug jo,,

UNITED STATES

[4 2

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

g WASHINGTON, D C. 20555 i

aj I,

February 22, 1989 i

The Honorable J. James Exon United States Senator l

287 Federal Building 100 Centennial Mall North Linccin, Nebraska 68508

Dear Senator Exon:

Your constituent, Mr. Jeffrey Boyd, inquired about an amendment that we have recently proposed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's regulations. This proposed amendment is entitled, " Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants" and it contains two alternatives. Both alternatives are intended to upgrade the operating, engineering, and accident management expertise provided on-shift at nuclear power plants. This upgrade is expected to enhance the capability of the operating staff to respond to potential accident situations and to effectively restore the reactor to a safe and stable condition. These alternatives are explained in a bit more detail below and a copy of the Federal Register Notice on this proposal is enclosed for additional information.

The first alternative would apply to senior reactor operators.

It would require that each applicant for a senior reactor operator license have a bachelor's degree in engineering, engineering technology, or the physical sciences from an accredited college or university. The first alternative would achieve our objective of upgrading by combining engineering expertise and operating experience in the senior reactor operator position.

The second alternative would apply to persons who have supervisory responsibilities, such as shift supervisors or senior managers.

It would require that they have enhanced educational credentials and experience over that which is normally required for senior reactor operators. The desired educational credentials are:

a bachelor's degree from a program accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology; a professional engineer license issued by a state government; or a bachelor's degree and an Engineer-in-Training certificate that indicates one has passed a state administered examination. The second alternative would achieve our objective of upgrading by combining engineering expertise and operating experience in the shift supervisor position.

The second alternative does not currently apply to the position held by your constituent, Mr. Boyd.

Even if the first alternative were selected for final promulgation, your constituent would be exempt (grandfathered) from the degree requirement if he maintains his senior reactor operator license.

The first alternative would become effective four years after final rule promulgation.

The exemption applies to persons wno hold a senior reactor operator license on the date four years after final rule promulgation. This exemption would ensure that the experience of the current senior reactor operators is retained.

Delaying the implementation of the first alternative by four years allows time for those reactor operators who want to become senior reactor operators to take the necessary examination and complete all requirements for the senior reactor C#5 7 operator license.

FULL TEXT ASCil SCAN

/'

8 D%)MM

=

.The Honorable J.-James Exon 2

Concurrently with the amended final rule on this matter, the Commission intends to publish a policy statement which encourages nuclear power plant licensees to:

1) implement _ personnel policies that emphasize the opportunities for licensed senior reactor operators to assume positions of increased management responsibility;

2) develop programs that would enable currently. licensed senior reactor operators, reactor operators, and shift supervisors to obtain college degrees; and 3) obtain college credit for appropriate nuclear power plant training and werk experience through arrangements with the academic sector.

Finally, I would emphasize that the concerns of your constituent, Mr. Boyd, will be considered during our analysis of the public comments received on this matter.

I trust that the above information is responsive to your request.

Sincerely,

\\r Vi

or Stello Jr ecutive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

Federal Register notice 4

O I

r 52756 Federal Regist:r / Vel. 53, No. 250 / Thursdsy. D:cember 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules m

or 4 importers would be involved. Dese

2. Paragraph (a) of I 94 9 would be soon as practicable the Commission has importations are insignificant when revised to read as follows:

decided to extend the comment period compared with the 300.000 oc more f r an additional thirty days. The i

swine that were imported into th i su PM w pe pre m countrm whm hog choks exists.

extended comment renod now expires United Statee in 1987.

on February 27,1989.

In addat2on, Great Britain has no pork (a) Hog cholera is know n to exist in processing plants that are approved by all countries of the world except DATE:The comment period has been I

the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Australia. Canada Denmark. Dominican extended and now expires February 27, Service. %erefore, even if Great Britain Republic. Finland. Great Britain 1989. Comments received aftler this date were to be recognized as being free of

[ England. Scotland. Wules. and Isle of will be considered if it is practical to do hog cholera. commerical shipments of Man). loeland, New Zealand. Northern so, but assurance of consideration pork products from that country to the freland. Norway, the Republic of cannot be given except as to comments United States would still be prohibited.

Ireland Sweden, and Trust Territory of received on or before this date Thus, while individuals would be the Pacific Islands.'

Aponesses: Mail written comments to:

allowed to import small quantities of Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington. DC 20555, pork and pork products for personal I " IA*

• d Attention: Docketing and Service consumption, commercial shipments would continue to be inchgible for

3. Section 94.10 would be amended by Branch. Copies of comments received importa tion.

adding " Great Bntain (England.

may be examined at the NRC Public for these reasons, the amount of pork Scotland Wales, and Isle of Man)."

Document Room. 2120 L Street NW and pork products imported into the immediately after " Finland."

Washington, DC.

United States from Great Britain would Dune in Washmston, DC, tha 22 day of Deliver comments to: 11155 Rockville remain very small, and would have no December 19a8 Pike Rockville, MD between 7:30 a.m.

significant impact on U.S. swine James W. Clouer.

and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.

producers.

Administmtor. AnimalandPlantHeoith FOR FURTHER INFORMATioN CONTACT:

Under these circumstances, the Inspection Semc

Moni Dey. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Administrator of the Animal and Plant

[FR Doc. 88-29M2 hjed 12-26-88. 8 45 aml Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulotory Health inpsection Service has sw o cops m Commission. Washington, DC 20555.

determined that this action would not

___- Telephone (301) 492-3730.

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY Dated at Rockville. Maryland this 22nd day

f December,1988.

COMMISSION Paperwork Reduction Act For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The regulations in this proposal 10 CFR Part EJ John C. Hoyle.

contain no information collection or Acting Secretary kr the Commission.

recordkeeping requirements under the Ensuring the Effectiveness of

[FR Doc. 88-2999.:Fded 12-26-88. 8.45 am)

Paperwork Reduction Act of1980 (44 Maintenance Programs for Nuclear U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Power Plants; Extension of Comment Period Executive Order 12372 Aoswcn Nuclear Regulaton HMMMWH This program / activity is listed in the Commission.

Catalog of FederalDomestic Assistance Education and Experience under No.10.025 and is subject to Acnosc Proposed rule: Extension of Requirements for Senior Reactor Executive Order 12372, which requires comment period.

Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear intergovernmental consultation with suuuaRn On November 28.1988 (53 FR Power Plants state and local officials. (See 7 CFR Part 47822) the Commission pubhshed for

1. E" "' 7 3015. Subpart V.)

public comment a rule that would

[, "['d' List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part s4 require commercial nuclear power plant licensees to strengthen their Acnom Proposed rule.

Animal diseases. Hog cholera, import.

5 ties der t Livestock and livestock products. Meat

,jinten nc a

SUMMARY

The Nuc! car Regulatory g

Commission is prcposing to amend its and snest products. Milk, Pooltry and events caused by the lack of effective r"gulati ns reg rdmg educational poultry products.

maintenance. T}ie comment Perind for A(cordingly,9 CFR Part 94 would be requirements for operating personnel at amended as follows:

this proposed rule was to have expired nuclear power plants. The proposed on January 27.1989. The Nuclear arnendments would require additional J

PART 94-RINDERPEST, FOOT AND.

Management and Resources Counc.l education and experience requirements i

i MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL (NUMARC) has requested a sixty-day for senior operators and supervisors. In PLAGUE), NEWCASTLE DISEASE extension of the comment period. In promulgating the proposed amendments.

(AVIAN PNEUMOENCEPHALITIS),

view of the importance of the proposed the Commission has identified Iwo i

AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, AND HOG rule. the arnount of time that thf alternatives 1

CHOLERA: PROHIDITED AND NUMARC suggests is required m order j

(InJer the firsi.!ternutn e. the RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS to provide rneaningful comments on behalf of its member utihties, and the proposed amendment would apply to l

1. The authority citation for Part 94 desirability of developing a final rule as senior eperators It would require that j

would continue to read as follows:

exh applicant for a senior operator li ense to operate a nuclear power Autburity: r U S C.147u 150ee 161.162*

' See also other prmismns of this part and Parts reactor have a bachelor s degree in 4*,0.19 U.S C.1300. 21 U.S.C.111.114a.134a.

s2. 95. 9s and 3: of this chapter for other 1341,. n4c. and 134f. 31 U.S.C. 9701: 42 U.S C.

prohib.twns and risincime upon irnport imn of engineering, engineering technology, or cat. 4u2,7 CFR 217,2.51, and 371.2(d).

emne and their products.

the physical sciences from an accredited

Fedir:1 Registir / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursday, DIcember 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 52717 university or college.The proposed sVMEMEKrARY tWOResAD00t an alternate means of providing the amendment would upgrs's the

Background

necessary technical and academic operating, engineering, at i accident knowledge to the shift crew. Option 1 of management expertise pr vided on shift Since the Three Mile Island Unit the Policy Statement permits an by combining engineering 3xpertise and (TMI-2) accident on March 28,1979, in individual to serve in the combined i

operating experi2nce in the senior which human error, among other factors, Senior Operator / Shift Technical operator position, contributed to the consequences of the Advisor (SO/STA) role if that individual Under the second alternative, the accident, the issue of academic holds either a bachelor's degree in proposed amendment would apply to requirements for reactor operators has engineering. engineering technology' persons who have supervisory been a major concern of the Nuclear physical science. or a professional responsibilities, such as shift Regulatory Commission (NRC). In July eer.c gjcense. Option 2 permits supervisors or senior managers. it would 1979, "nti-2 Lessons Learned Task c n nuation of the separate STA who require that they have enhanced Force Status Report and Short Term, r tates with the shift and bolds e educational credentials and experience Recommendations /* (NUREG4578) over that which is normally required for made specific recommendations for a bachelor's degree or equivalent and meets the criteria as stated in, senior reactor operators.The proposed Shift Technical Advisor (STA) to amendment would upgrade the provide engineering and accident R qu men

( RE 3 I.

e operating, engineering, and accident assessment expertise during other than management expertise provided on shift normal operstmg conditions. On Commission also encouraFes the shift by combining engineering expertise and October 30,1979, the NRC notified all supervisor to serve in the dual-role operating experience in the shift operating nuclear powerlicensees of t'e position, and the STA to take an active supervisor position.

short. term STA requirements,i.e., that role in shift activities.

The Commission believes that STAS should be on shift by January On May 30,1986, the NRC published adoption of either of the alternatives, for 1980, and that they should be fully an advance notice of proposed senior operators or shift supervisors.

trained by January 1981. In November rulemaking (ANPRM) (51 PR 19561). The would further ensure the protection of 1980, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan purpose of the ANPRM was to extend the health and safety of the public by Requirements." (NUREG4737),

the current level of engineering enhancing the capability of the provided further details to licensees expertise on shift, as described in the operating staff to respond to accidents regarding implementation of the STA Commission's Policy Statement on and restore the reactor to a safe and position. lt identified the STA as a Engineering Expertise on Shift (50 m stable condition.

temporary position pending a 43621) and to ensure that senior oA u s: Comment period expires Commission decision regarding long operators have operating experience on February 27,1989. Comments received range upgrading of reactor operator end a commercial nuclear reactor operating af ter this date will be considered if it is senior operator capabilities.

at greater than twenty percent power, practical to do so, but the Commission is The qualifications of operators were e.g., " hot" operating experience (Generic able to assure consideration only for also addressed by the 1979. " Lessons Letter 84-16).The ANPRM was the j

comments received on or before this Learned Task Force " (NUREG-0585),

result of a Commission decision to

date, the 1980 Rogovin report, 'Three Mile consider an amendment to lta Aoonesses: Mail comments to: The Island: A Report to the Commissioners regulations (Parts 50 and 55) and to Secretary of the Commission. U.S.

and to the Public " (NUREC/CR-1240),

obtain comments on the contemplated Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the 1982," Report of the Peer action to upgrade the levels of operating.

Washington, DC 20555, Attention:

Advisory Panel and the Nuclear engineering, and acciden! management Docketing and Service Branch.

Regulatory Commission on Operator expertise on shift.

Deliver comments to: One White Flint Qualifications," (SECY 82-162).'

In addition to describing the proposed North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Although the 1982 report recommended rule in general, the ANPRM presented a Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 againstimposition of a degree list of twenty questions concerning p.m. Comments may also be delivered to requirement, the consensus among these various aspects and implications of the the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L rep rts was that greater techmcal and propoted rule.Two hundred letters were academic knowledge among shift received in response to the ANPRM. A Street. Lower Level NW., Washington, DC between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m.

perating personnel would be beneficial summary and analysis of the comments Examine comments received, the to the safety of nuclear power plants.

are included in SECY-87-101 dated co 1

'NRC environmental assessment and finding April 10,1987.The NRC has reviewed in l

of no significant impact, and the p

ReE, (50 R detail, all the comments made on the regulatory analysis at the NRC Public 43621) a finalpolicy statement on ANPRM as well as comments received Document Room. 2120 L Street Iower engineering expertise on shift to allow since that time. In general, the level NW., Washington, DC.

commenters were opposed to a degree Obtain single copies of the i copies of an N1? RECS referenced may be requirement for senior operators.The environmental assessment and finding

{"{ha n;

proposed amendment 6 in this notice dt h e en en of no significant impact and the o s covernmer.t Pnntms Ofhce. P O. Bogog reflect in detail many of the comments regulatory analysis from M.R.

Washmgton. DC ExnMo82. Copies may also be and responses to the questions posed.

Fleishman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory purchased from the National Techmcal informauon Apart from the detailed ccmments on Research Washington, DC 20555, y'gfed'spnh'[v$'f' the proposed contents of the rule, a telephone (301) 492-3794-available for inspecuen or copytng for a fee in the number of general comments were FOR FURTHER INFORM ATION CONTACT:

NRC Pubbc Document Room. 2120 L Street. Lower provided regarding the possible adverse l

M R. Fleishman, Office of Nuclear I""' NW ** hinst n. oc.

effecu of requiring degrees for senior l

Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear cen)r cNUeEs$uN "a'I.$a'i opmtors. The public comments as well bci Regulatory Commission. Washington.

the Nac public Document Room ai 2120 L street, e' those raised during NRC staff review, l

DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3794.

tower Levet Nw. Washinston. DC.

con be categorized as follows:

l 52718 Fodir:) Register / Vol. 51, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29. 1988 / Proposed Rules

1. The proposed n lc is not nei. M Concurrent Policy Statement respor.d to compt transients and 2 Emperience is more important than a The Comnii!,sion will pubbsh accidents and thereby further ensure the 3

pro se rule win N a rt eative concurrently with the final rule a policy pro echun of the health and safety of the im,* art on safety.

y tj statement which encouwes nuclear pub ic.

/

4 'l re propoaed rule operator tarnover rate.^ren.!t in a g ever power plant licensees, working with the The policy statement en engmesnng nuclear industry, to:

expertise on shift pubbshed in the

)

5 The proposed rule will basically block j

8 8

n r 2 In85 (50 l

the e,ueer path of reactor orcrators resulting

1. Implement pctsonnel pscies that in lower morale.

emphame the opportunities for hcensed FR 43621) provided,an in,tenm method of

{

6 There will be less overall expenence on operators to assurne positions of increased achievmg more engmeenng capability j

shift dae to the promotion of sos into management responsibihty; on shift. Essentially, with Alternative 1

2. Develop programs that would enable the NRC is moving from interim management positions.

currently bcensed senior operators. reactor requirements which provide engineering The Advisory Committee on Reactor operat rs and shift supervis s to btain Safeguards (ACRS) also comiidered the c llede de8ree8; and capability for accident conditions (the j

STA). to requiring engine ering preposed requirement and discussed it le r pbe-i aNr[

capabihty, and nuclear power p!sr.t experience through arransernents with the perating experience, in the same

{

n nt si at several meetings in 1986 and 1987.

The ACRS strongly supported the academic sector indiudual(the SO).

concept of having engineenng expertise on each shift, However, they d d not Discussion In Alternative 1, the proposed amendment would require each agree that requiring a degree for senior The NRC is concerned that operator applicant for a senior operator (SO) operators was the best approach. though quahfications to deal with accidents license to operate a nuclear reactor, they agreed that specific techmcul beyond design basis conditions warrant after (4 years following the e!!ective kno'wledge should be required. They improvement. Operator training date of the ruleJ. to have a badelor's beheved that. because of the concern programs and related emergency degree in engineering, engineenng about adverse effects raised by many operating procedures generally do not technulogy, or the physical scences knowledgeable individuals, the consider accident conditions beynnd from an accredited university or college.

proposed rule should be reconsidered.

inadequate core cooling. There is a Applicants with other bachelor's The Commission has carefully general consensus that well qualified degrees from an accredited institution, considered the numerous comments operators can substantially mitigate the or from a foreign college or uruversity, received on the ANPRM as well as the effects of severe accidents. The industry would be considered on a case by-case recommendations of the ACRS. During Degraded Core Rulemaking Program basis if the utility (licensee) certifies its deliberations subsequent to the (IDCOR) industry group. for example, that the applicant has demonstrated ANpRM, the Commission considered the has developed arguments that operators engmeenng expertise and high potential following three options regarding could substantially reduce the nsk for the SO position. The Commission improving engineering expertise on shift: posed t 4 these conditions.The NRC is does not want to prevent individuals

1. Proceed with the contemplated deg ee considea.ng the need for more extensive with excellent engineering experience, rule and concurrent pohey statement as severe accident training and emergency but with nontechnical degrees, from operating procedures as well as becoming sos: however, degree engineering qualifications for senior equivalency will no longer be accepted.

n t e long-term in a less Se r Operators on shift who have bachelor s operators.

An accredited university or college is degrees.

There are numerous approaches that defined as an educationalinstitution in

2. Propose a rule to require a degreed may be taken regarding the issue of the United States which has been individual on shift similar to e Senior improved operator capabilities; the approved by a regional accrediting Mznager, as described in SECY-84-106.

Commission has decided to request body.

" Proposed Rulemaking Concemins comments on two approaches. The The proposed amendment would Requirements for Senior Manager:"

proposed amendments would on1 affect apply to applicants for a SO to operate a

3. Amend the Policy Statement on 3

Enginrenns Expertise on Shift 850 FR 43rc1) persons associated with nuclear power nt. clear power reactor. People who held rehetors. They would not affect persora SO licenses on [4 years following the P

associated with non power nuclear effectwe date of the rulej would be prog adi to eg ee o ut h e e comtuned SO/STA option and to phase out reactors such as research and test exempt ficm the degree requirement.

use of separate STA.

reactors. Each al:ernat;ve approach will Thus, those persons who hold a senior The Commission has decided to be considered in parallel. Each approach operator license on [4 years following is discussed separately. Much of the the effective date of the rule), would be proposed two alternative amendments d:scussion of Alternative 2 duplicates "gra ndf athered" (i.e., a lifetime for consideration and public comment that of Alternative 1 so that each may be exemption) by the propnsed with the understanding that, following viewed on its own merits.

amendment. Even if they were to lose the public comment period only one alternative would be se!ected for final Alternative F--Requirements for Senw.

tncir SO license in the future, e g. due to

/

r promulgation.The alternative proposed Omators a change in jobs d61 ants, the y could Mll neply for a new SO license are similar to Options 1 and 2 but with The purpose of this proposed withuat >atisfying the degree signihcant differences based on alternative is to upgrade the operating.

requin ment. It is recognized that comments and further considerations by engineering. and accident management "t;randf athering" current sos could the Commission following the ANPRM.

expertise provided on shift by result in sos without degrees for an Although comments remved on the combining both engineering expertise extended period of time. Since the ANPRM were generally t;nfavorable, the and operating experience in the senior Commission's intent is to maintain at Commission believes that it would be operator function. The NRC believes this least the same degree of engineering heneficial to have a full public airing of approach will enhance the capataility of expertise on shift as currently eusts, the views on these)p proposals.

the operating staff to analyze and STA policy described under options 1 Ver

e Federal RegistIr / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 1968 / Proposed Rtdes

$2719 and 2 of the October 28.1985 pohey of " hot" and at least 3 years tots' on educational cnteria. would have to s'atement (50 FR 43621) would continue operating experience fer each appbcant be revised to reflect this amendment.

m eficct. Thus, if two "g%ndfathered" for a SO license. A RO heense is The concurrent pohcy statement is sos are used on shift. the facih*y required in order to get "het" control intended to encourage licensees hcensee would be regmred to have a room operating expenence; thus. the (utihties) and the nucle.r industry to separate individual on shift who has the proposed amendment expands the provide mcentives and management STA education and experience current NRC pohey, described in opportunities for sos as well as to descnbed in NUREG-&37. If one of the Regulatory Guide 1.8. Revision 2. dated improve the engineermg capabilities of sos has a degree and one is April 1987, "Quahfication and Trainin8 the on shift crew. De SO with a de e

" grandfathered." Option 1 of the policy of Personnel for Nuclear Power plants."

and shift o erart statement would be satisfied. When all to ensure that sos with degrees have become a valuab p rao nel t ource sos have degrees. the policy statement sufficient operating expenence.

for the utility one who combines shift would no longer be needed.

Regulatory Guide 1.8 in position C.1.e.,

operational managemeni experience ne concurrent policy statement will allows an applicant for a SO bcense with the potential for greater encourage previously licensed sos to with a degree to have only 2 years of management respor.sibility. ne Policy lant experience, obtain degrees. In the past the NRC has responmble power [s to be as a reacto' ' '

8 og" accepted " equivalents" to the bachelor's none of which nee enco rs nsees p t

degree for a separate STA.The cperator. Thus Regulatory Gaide 1.s career path' equivalents were based upon will be revised if the proposed The Commission believes that specialized utility training or other work amendment is adopted. The proposed requiring a degree will contribute to the experiences. For the proposed amendment would require the SO N

OO amendment, however, equivalency applicant with a degree to serve as e :(O perational experience. technical and rcent power for'st kan 20 foes not mean that the would not be acceptable to the NRC in at greater creden fals ha sh d imPro eft "his heu of a degree. Because the least l ', a Commission is not in a position to reactor o ce at power 100 percent of puf nnance as opuators and possibly evaluate the academic equivalency of the time aurms the year, however, the 1 pen caren paths from wNch they may utihty training. it encourages utilities to year time period should not include have been excluded in the past.The sos seek out academic institutions who will periods of significant downtime for with degrees should be able to respond evaluate the training programs and grant maintenance or refueling (i.e., periods better to off normalincidents.While course credit for such equivalency based that exceed 6 weeks duration). Special there will be increased traint'ns to cover upon work experience or speciahzed provisions are proposed in order to accident conditions, training alone is not training.Thus the concurrent policy accommodate those applicants from statement will encourage efforts to have facilities that are unable to operate sufficient. It is imposs,ible to cover every the training accepted by the colleges for above twenty percent power due either eventuality during traming, ne partial credit toward fulfilhng the to (a) the facilities not having completed opuators must have sufficient requirements of an accredited degree, their initial startup program and being understanding of basic engineering The degree requirement would not licensed to run at power. or (b) the pnnciples and detailed knowledge of apply to licensed reactor operators facilities being in an extended shutdown nuclear design and operation to IROs). llowever, the concurrent policy mode. In the case of the facilities not yet appropriately respond to situations that statement will encourage ROs to obtain licensed to run at power. alternative have not been previously covered in degrees so that they can progress to the approaches to meet the twenty percent trairring sessions. In addition, Sor with SO position and to other utihty power requirement may be approved by degrees will have greater oppornmity for positions. The Commission believes a the Commission. In the case of facilities professional growth since they will have degree requirement for sos on shift.

in extended shutdown. the Commission the qualifications needed to advance to along with the concurrent policy may process the application and managerial pasitions. With the chance statement. will not only enhance public administer the written and operating for penonal growth should come greater health and safety, but wdi also enhance tests but would defer issuance of the job satisfaction. The validity of these promotion opportunities for sos.

senior operating license untd the twenty behefs has been reenforced by the j

The cutoff date of four years following percent power requirement is fulfilled.

expencnces of licensed operators the effective date of the rule for This proposed requirement for a 50 participating in an ongoing utihty apphcation for a SO hcense by applicant with a degree also imphes that sponsored program similar to what is individuals who do not have degrees is an applicant for a RO license with a bemg proposed hereb. The Comi..ssion chosen for three reasons. First. it will degree must only have 2 years of related also believes that migration of sos allow operators now in training nuclear power plant experience. This is upward into plant management wil!

suffi,:ient time and notice to complete e a change to the guidance in Regulatory contribute to improved plant safety.

i degr se before application. Second. it Guide 1.8 which endorses the American A /rernative 2-Requirements for should not cause undue hardship on National Standard. ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981.

Supmisors cperators who are now in the process of

" Selection. Qualification and Training of prepanng and training for the serior Personnel for Nuclear puwer plants "

The purpose of tbs proposed operator hcense, and third. licensees The siindard indicates that a RO alternative is to upp ade the operatmg.

have been encouraged by the Policy appbcant n.ust have a min.mm of 3 engineer:ng. and acadent management Statr ment on Engineering Expertise on years of power plant expmience of experti:" provided on shift by S! aft (Option 1) to mose toward a dual.

whu 5 at least 1 year sball be naclear combin ng both engineering expertise rule SO/STA position. Furthermore.

power experience. if the p apm. d and operating experience in the shift those operators who are licensed as sos amendment is adopted,it wouh!

supersisor or senior manger functen er. the cutoff date would be supersede the guidance in R gulatua descnbed in 5 50 54(m)p)(ii) of the "gran dfa th ered."

Cuide 1.8 and necessitate i,9 resision in regulations. The NRC belies es this will in Alternative 1. the proposed accord with the amendment Also, enhance the capabihty c,f the opnating amendment would also require one year position C.1.d of Regulatc,ry Cu;Je t a.

i.v.ff to analyze and respor.d to comp!ex l

______________-_-______j

4 52720 Fedirtl Register / Vol. 53. No. 250 / '!1 uredry. Decemb r 29. 1988 / Proposed Rules transients and accidents and thereby under options 1 and 2 in the October 28.

operating experience for each shift further ensure the protection of the 1985 policy statement (50 FR 43821) supervisor or seruor manager. The health and safety of the public.

would be eliminated since the shift proposed amendment changes the The policy statement on engineenng supervisor would be providing the current NRC policy, desenbed in expertise on shift pubbshed in the engineering expertise on shift and there Regulatory Guide 1.8. Revbion 2. dated Federal Register on October 28,1985 (50 would be no need for the STA.

April 1987. " Qualification and Training FR 43621) provided an interim method of in the past the NRC has accepted of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants."

achieving more engineering capability

" equivalents" to the bachelor's degree Regulatory Guide 1.8 In position C.1.d.,

on shift. Essentially, with Alternative 2.

for a separate STA.The equivalents states that a shift supervisor only needs the NRC is moving from intenm were based upon specialized utility a high school diploma. Thus. Regulatory l

requirements which provide engineering training or other work experiences. For Guide 1.8 will be revised. if the proposed capability for accident conditions (the the proposed amendment, however, amendment is adopted, to reflect the STA). to requiring engineering equivalency would not be acceptable to new educational credentials and I

capability, and nuclear power plant ths NRC in lieu of one of the educational experience required to become a shift operating experience. in the shift credentials. Because the Commission is supervisor (i.e.,3 years experience with supervisor or senior manager, not in a position to evaluate the 1 year as a RO).The proposed In Alternative 2. the proposed academic equivalency of utility training, amendment would require the shift amendment would revise i 50.54, it encourages utilities to seek ov' supervisor to serve as a RO at greater Conditions of licenses, regarding the academic restitutions who will evaluate than 20 percent power for at least 1 requirements for a shift supervisor or the training programs and grant course year. This does not mean that the senior manager, it makes a distinction credit for such equivalency based upon reactor must be at power 100 percent of between power plant sites with one work experience or specialized training.

the time during the year; however, the 1 control room and those with two or Thus, the concurrent policy statement year time period should not include more control rooms. The intent of the will encourage efforts to have the periods of significant downtime for I

proposed amendment is to ensure that training accepted by the colleges for maintenance or refueling (i.e., periods there is a separate shift supervisor for partial credit toward fulfilling the that exceed 6 weeks duration). Special each control room who is responsible educational requirements for the shift provisions are proposed in order to j

for overall operation of all fueled units supervisors.

accommodate shift supervi. ors from operated by the control room at all times The educational credential fscilities that are unable to operate tnere is fuel in any of the units.The requirement would not apply to licensed above twenty percent power due to the Commission may permit exemptions to reactor operators (ROs) or senior facilities not having completed their the one supervisor per control room opera tors (sos). The concurrent policy initial startup program and being amendment, on a case-by<ase basis, for statement will encourage all ROs and licensed to run at power. For such those situations where control rooms sos to obtain the enhanced educational facilities, alternative approaches to meet may be close to each other. The credentials so that they can progress to the twenty percent power requirement c

pro' posed amendment would require the shift supervisor position and to other may be approved by the Commission.

i ea!h shift supervi.or, after [4 years utility positions.The Commission The concurrent policy statement is believes that the educational intended to encourage licensees following the effective date of the rule). /requiregeDt for shift supervisors along (utilitiee) and the nuclear industry to to have one or more of the following enhanced educational credentials: A / with th4t:Urrent policy statement, will provide incentives and management bachelor's degree from a program not only enhance public health and opportunities for shift supervisors as accredited by the Accreditation Board safety, but will also provide a route for well as to improve the engineering for Engineering and Technology (ABET): promoting ROs and sos. By restricting capabihties of the on shift crew.The a professional engineer license issued the requirement to shift supervisors, the shift supervisor with enhanced by a state government: or, a bachelor's Commission believes that the normal educational credentials and shift degree and an Engineer.in. Training progression from RO to SO can be operating experience can become a (EIT) certificate that indicates one has retained for those ROs and sos who do valuable personnel resource for the passed an examination administered by not wish to obtain the enhanced utility, one who combines shift a state or other recognized authority, educational credentials and whn has e operational management experience This requirement will ensure a minimum no desire to enter management.

with the potential for greater les el of engmeering expertise for each The date of four years following the management responsibility. The policy sh.ft supervisor.The bachelor's degree effective date of the rule for statement, among other thmgs, will w tth the EIT would not necessarily have imp!ementation of the educational encourage licensees to provide that ta be in a technical discipline, provided credentials requirement for shift career path; both for shift supervisors the pt: san meets the state education supervisors is chosen for two reasons c nd other operating personnel who and esperience criteria for First,it will allow shift supervisors ebtain enhanced educational I

adminstration of the EIT.The NRC sufficient time and notice to complete a credentials.

recer. ires that in some states it may not degree. Second, it should not cause The Commission bdieves that be possible to be registered as a undue hardship on shift supervisors requiring enhanced educational professional engineer or receive an EIT since licensees have been encouraged credentials will contribute to the goal of cert.ficate without having received by the policy Statement on Engineenng hamg shif t supervisors who have either a bachelor's degree from an ABET Expertise on Shift (Option 1) to move opuational experience, and technical accredited program or a bachelor's toward a dual. role SO/STA position; and academic knowledge. that should di gree in a technical discipline. For which has frequently been assumed by improve their performance as indmduals in those states, the NRC is the shift supervisor.

supervisors and possibly open career considering other options available for In Alternative 2.the proposed paths from which they may have been adrr.inistering an EIT equivalant amendment would also require one year excluded in the past. The shift examination. The STA policy described of" hot" and at least 3 years total supervisors should be able to respond I

Fed:ral Regist:r / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thurtiday. December 29. 1968 / Proposed Rul:s 52721 better to off normalincidents. Whde and throughout the utility with a safety; others were discussed and there will be increased training to cover resultant improvement in plant safety.

dropped because no basis was found to accident conditions, training alone is not invitation to Comment support them. The proposal for decread s.:fficient. It is !mpossible to cover every operators was an example of the lauer.

es entuality durmg training. The shift in view of the unusual nature of this it is unfortunate that this issue supervisors must have sufficient notice of proposed rulemaking,in which continues to surface. As reflected in the undentanding of basic engineenng two alternatives are proposed, the earlier public comments on this issue.

prmciples, and detailed knowledge of Commission specifically encourages the mere potential for imposition of this nuclear design and operation to comments regarding comparison of the requirement la having a negative imput appropriately respond to situations that alternatives Comments are particularly on operator rnorale. I continue to behoe have not baen previously covered in solicited in regard to:

a requirement for degreed senior training seuloos. In addidon, shift

1. Which altemative is preferable assuming OPerstors is ill advised. Not only is there supervisors with enhanced educational one will be selected 7 no demonstrated safety benefit from thrs credentials ; vill have greater opportunity

2. What are the potentialimpacts of each of action but there is a significant potential for professional growth since they will the attematives on licensee staffing 7 for negative safety implications. To once hate the qualifications needed to 3 Regardmg implementation of the again publish this proposal will only ad5ance to managerial positions.The attematives. would there be a more continue the negative irnpact this issue Commission also beheves that migration appropriate transition period for each is having on operator morale alternativ th n propose ofsht supervisors upward into plant (o thr e dderent In 1981, the Commission formed a management will contribute to improve methods for demonstrating technical peer review panel to consider overall plant safety, expertise with educational credentials.

specifically reactor operator Cocclusion woul.1 some other method be desirable for qualifications including whether a BS this purpose? Are there other attemative level degree should be required for Although the Commission believe there is a net benefit of the proposej wsyn to demonstrate knowledge of senior operators. This peer review panel appropriate engineenng fundamentals for concluded (ref. -SECY-82-182) that not amendments in enhancing public health people who may be ineligible to take the Err nj was the;e no evidence that a y

and safety,it acknowledges that this examination?

judgment is based on a qualitative

5. Should a reqmrement be imposed formal degree was necessary for job assessment of the relative contribution requinns all seruor operators to pass an performance but that " imposition of of various factors, some with potential Engmeenna in Training (EIT) or equivalent such a requirement, without evidence exammation as a measue of basic technical that the requirement is needed to positive impacts and others with expertise in addition to or matead of. the two perform the job, is likely to result in a potential negat.ive imptets The most proposals in this notice 7 tf such a decrement in overall performance and significant positive gactor is the requirement were in place, would it be thus impairpublic safety"[emphtais enhanced capability of the ag necessary to require enhanced educational added) In spite of umeras sNdies operating staff to effectively manage credentials for shift supervisoraf c nducted by the staff since 198.4 there accidentr. Increased operating

e. Independent of a degree requirement,is experience of plant management is also there a need for the experience requirements is still no evidence that a BS degree is an anticipated longer term benefit, to be increased for the shift supervisor needed to perform the job of senior How ever, there are possible position? Are the proposed requirements operator. In fact, in the recent report called for in the two attematives sufficienti entitled " Human Factors Research and disad vantages. For Alternative 1. they Nuclear Safety", the National Research include (1) the potential for lower Additional Views of Commissioner and Panel e Human Factors morale among reactor operators without Roberts degrees whose natural career path, Research Needs in Nuclear Regulatory promotion to the SO level,is blocked.

In this proposed rulernaking the Research recommended research in this and (2) the potential reduction of overalj Commission is considenng two area prior to making a degree operating experience on shift as sos alternatives regarding educational mandatory. The panel considered this with degrees move to other work. For requirements for operating personnel.

research a high priority as "(a)n Alternative 2. the disadvantages include The first alternative, which is an old mjudicious regulation could lead to the potential f ar lower morale among proposal, would impose a degree problems with both morale and seruor operators without degrees whose requirement in senior operators. The recruiting without necessarily improving

]

promotion to the shift supervisor levelis second alternative would require safety."

lacked.

enhanced educational credentials for Although I agree that it is valuable to Upon consihtion of these and other supervisory personnel. Although I have have petsonnel with operating 4

f actors, sud u. iose identified by the not reached a judgment on the need for experience in utility management, it is pblic comen..a process on the ANPRM.

supervisory personnel to have enhanced inappropriate to attempt to accomplish the Commission concludes. at this time, educational credentials, I am supporting this objective by so severely pena!izing that the oserall effect of the proposed the publishing of the second alternative reactor operators and senior operators I l

a r.er.dments would be beneficial and in order to obtain the benefit of the do not believe that one obtains the w ould result in greater p! ant safety. This public's comments. In the case of the motivation and abilities that makes an

)

benefit will be achieved over time by degreed operator proposal.1 cannot do individual a good manager merely by J

obtaining a degree. Those individuals iruproved quahty of the operational so.

i personnel and by plant management Since I have been a member of the with motivation and ability will pursue that has a better understanding of the Commission, there have been numerous a degree to improve their qualifications.

j unique operational problems associated proposals dealing with the size.

There are currently a significant number with nuclear power reauui 4:Wns.

qualifications and organization of the of senior operators who have degrees.

The Commission believes that operating crew at nuclear power plama.

This should provide a sufficient pool of increasing the educationallevel of the Several of these proposals were adopted individuals resulting in an infusion of

)

o;erating staff willincrease by the Commission because it was operating exerience into utility

)

professionalism both in the control room determined that they would enhance management.

l 52722 Fed:ral Registrr / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules i be!ieve that the Comm:ssion and the Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et compmd to larger organizations in the same industry have put in place a number of seo ). F.xisting requirements were busmess commumty.

programs which have upgraded and will approved by the Office of Management

2. How the proposed regulations could be contm.e to upgrade the qualifications of and Budget approval numbers 3150 modified to take into account their diffenna reactor operators. In addition, the 0011,3150-0018. and 3150-0090 nuds or capabihines.

3. The benefits that would accrue. or the increased recognition of the importance of w ell qualified operators will commue Regulatory Analysis detnments that would be avoided. if the to pay dividends in the future. A number The Commission has prepared a draft

[y"[,*tfd$y" fco"m*me"*

• difi*d **

8 of utthta s are providing opportunities regulatory analysis for this proposed

4. How the proposed regulations as for their operators to further their regulation. The analysis examines the modified. would more closely equalize the

t -at m I f"Ilu r. pp-1 J ' 4.yourage costs and benefits of the alternatives impact of NRC regulations or create more i

I these initiatives. These programs will w.:Mered by the Commission. The equal access to the benefits of Federal allow those with ability and desire to draft regetory analysis is available for programs se opposed to providins special progress up the management chain.1 am inspection an.4 copying for a fee at the advantases to any individuals or sroups.

confident that these imtlatives will NRC Public Doc. cent Room. 2120 L

5. How the proposed regulations, as enhance the safe operation of our Street. Lower Level. NW., Washington.

modified, would still adequately protect the nuclear power plants. However, one can DC. Single copies of the gnalysis may be pubhc health and safety.

not expect immediate results.These obtained from M. R. Fleish. nan. Office of The comments should be sent to the initiatives take time to show Nuclear Regulatory Research.

Secretary of the Commission. U.S.

improvements.

Washington. DC 20555, telepho.,e (301)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

When commenting on Altemative 2 of 492-3794.

Washington. DC 20555, Attention:

the proposed rulemaking I will be The Commission requests pubh Docketing and Service Branch.

particularly interested in comments comment on the draft analysis.

concerning the viability of this proposal. Comments on the draft analysis may be Backfit Analysis To be viable, this proposal must allow submitted to the NRC as indicated neder As required by 10 CFR 50.109 the for the orderly progression of operating the sooncssss headin8-Commission has completed a backfit personnel through the ranks from Regulatory flexibility Certification analysis for the proposed rule.The auxiliary operator to shift supervisor so Commission has determined, based on as to ensure experienced personnel on As required by the Regulatory this analysis, that backfitting to comply shift. Specifically, I would like to know, Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

with the requirements of this roposed the Commission certifies that this rule. if rule will provide a substantfafincrease from the perspective of current operating personnel, how accessible are promulgated, will not have a significant in protection to public health and safety ABlir accredited engineering programs?

economic impact upon a substantial or the common defense and security at a If the PE or EIT options are selected, number of small entitles. This proposed cost which is justified by the substantial which states allow registration and/or rule affects only the licensing and increase. 'Ite backfit analysis on which classification as an EIT without an operation os nuclear power plants. It this determination is based reads as ABLT accredited degree? In hght of the also affects individuals bcensed as

gogig, fact that states require work experience operators at these plants. The to be registered as a PE and, with a non.

companies that own these plants and

1. gtotement of the c)fic objectives accredited engineering or related degree, the individual plant employees licensed i3of theproposedbo fi is designedro C

l'"'-

often require work experience to be to operate them do not fall within the classified as an EIT will state scope of the definition of"small The objective of the proposed rule is registration boards grant credit for entities" set forth in the Regulatory to upgrade the operating. engm, eering, operating experience as " acceptable Flexibility Act or the Small Business and accident management expertise professional experience... of a grade Size Standards set out in regulations provided on shift by combining both and character indicating that the issued by the Small Business engineering expertise and operating Administration in 13 CFR Part 121. Since Expenence in the senior operator or shift applicant may be competent to practice engineering"? If credit is granted for these compames are dominant in their supervisor functions.

operating experience, does this service areas, this proposed rule does

2. Generoldescription of the activity l

experience have to be acquired after not fall within the purview of the Act.

that would be required by the licensee H wever, because there may be now or opplicant in order to complete the 1

receiving a degree?

I will also be interested in commentr-Of I".the future small entities which will bocAfit.

in response to Questions 4. 5 and 6 of provide licensed operators to nuclear The proposed rule, under Altemative p wer plants on a contractual basis, the 1, would remire each applicant for a the invitation to Comment.

NRC is specifically seeking comment as senior or.rator (SO) license to operate a En viro nm e ntal Impa ct--Categorical to how the regulations will affect them nucler. power reactor, after [4 years Exclusion and how the regulations may be tiered foll, wing the effective date of the rule).

The NRC has determined that this or otherwise modified to impose less to have a bachelor's degree in l

praposed regulation is the type of action stringent requirernents on them while engineering, engineering technology, or described in categorical exclusion 10 still adequately protecting the public the physical sciences from an accredited CFR 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an ealth and safety. Those small entities university or college. Applicants with which offer commenn on how the other bachelor's degrees from an environmental impact statement not an environmental assessment has been regulations could be modified to take accredited institution. or from a foreign prepared for this proposed regulation.

into account the differing needs of small college or university, would be entities should specifically discuss the considered on a case.by. case basis if Paperwork Reduct, ion Act Statement following items:

the utility (licensed certifies that the This proposed rule does not contain a 1.The sue of their buuness and how the applicant has d emonsiceted engineering new or amended information collection proposed regulations would result in a expertise and I gh poten'lal for the SO requirement subject to the Paperwork signJicant economic burden upon them as position. The L mrnissior. does not want

Fed ral Register / Vol. 53, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 52723 to prevent individuals with excellent power nuclear reactors such as research operators must have sufficient engineering experience, but with and test reactors. Exemptions to the one understanding of basic engineering nontechnical degrees, from becoming supervisor per control room principles, and detailed knowledge of sos; howen, degree equivalency will requirement, may be permitted. on a nuclear design and operation to no longer bs accepted. An accredited case.by-case basis. for those situations appropriately respond to situations that university or college is defined as an where control rooms may be close to have not been previously covered in educational institution in the Umted each other. Each shift supervisor after training sessions. In addition. sos with States which has been approved by a (4 years following the effective date of degrees or shift supervisors with regional accrediting body, the rule), would need to have one or enhanced educational credentials will The proposed amendment would more of the following enhanced have greater opportunity for apply only to applicants for a SO license educational credentials: A bachelor's professional growth since they will have to operate a nuclear power reactor, degree from a program accredited by the the qualifications r.eeded to advance to people who hold SO licenses on [4 years Accreditation Board of Engineering and managerial positions. The Commission following the effective date of the rule)

Technology (ABET); a professional believes that there will also be an would be exempt from the degree engineer license issued by a state requirement. Those persons who hold a government; or, a bachelor's degree and improvement in plant safety as sos or shift supervisors migrate upward into senior operator license on [4 years an Engmeer.in. Training (EIT) certificate following the effective date of the rule) that indicates one has passed an plant management although this improvement could be counter balanced.

would be " grandfathered" by the examination administered by a state or proposed rule. The proposed other recognized authority. This in part. by a potential reduction in amendment would not apply to 50 requirement will ensure a minimum overall operating experience on shift as applicants for non. power nuclear level of engineering expertise for each sos with degrees move to other work.

reactors such as research end test shift supervisor. The bachelor's degree

4. Potentia / impact on radiological reactors. Licensed reactor operator with the EIT would not necessarily have exposure offacihty employees.

(ROs) would not be required to have a to be in a technical discipline provided There is not expected to be any degree. The proposed rule would also the person meets the state education significant change in the radiological require one year of " hot" (i.e. as an RO and experience criteria for exposure of facility employees due to at greater than 20 percent power) and at administration of the EIT.The proposed the proposed rule except for the least 3 years total operating experience rule would also require one year of unquantifiable reduction in the for each applicant for a SO license.

" hot" and at least 3 years total operating probability and consequences of an Special provisions would be proposed to experience for each shift supervisor or accident and the subsequent reduction accommodate those applicari (rom senior manager. Special provisions in exposure.

facilities that are unable to operate would be proposed to accommodate

5. Installation and continuing costs above 20 percent power.

those applicants from facilities that are ossociated with the backfit. including The proposed requirements of unable to operate above 20 percent the cost offacility downtime or th(cost Alternative 1 would only apply to power power, of construction delay.

reactor licensees indirectly. There

3. Potentia / c.mge in the risk to the One of the questions posed in the May would be no modification of or addition Public from the accidento/ off. site 30,1986 ANpKM. relative to Alternative" to the organization. i.e. administrative release ofrodioactwe material.

and functional structure, required to It is not feasible to quantitatively 1, concerned what the implementation and operation costs of the proposed operate a nuclear power reactor as a evaluate the change in risk to the pubh.c result of this proposed amendment as a result of the proposed rule.That is, amendrc.;nt would be to the utilities.

because:

the effect of the SO or shift supervisor The cost estimates received ranged from negligible to prohibitive. Various

1. the person to whom the sos report

[a cident e change in$e scenarios for achieving the desired E

would not change:

2. the number of sos per shift would not probability and consequences of rn staffing level of sos with degrees were accident as a result of requiring either assumed. These varied from hiring he' total numbu of operators per shift the 50 to hase a bachelor's degree or individuals with degrees and passing 3

uuld not change; the shift supervisor to have enhanced them through the normal utihty training 4 the traimng requirements wntten educational credentials is not known.

programs to taking ROs and sending examinations and operating tests for a SO The Commission believes that requiring them to college while either paying them would not change: and degrees for sos or enhanced at osertime rates or hiring replacement

5. the tasks performed by a So would not educational credentials for shift ROs. A utdity could also implement an change' supnvisors will contribute to the goal of onsite college degree program for its llowever, the power reactor licensees hasing sos or shift supervisors who operators. for example, a program would have to get new sos from a group have operational experience and currently being run for an operating of indmduals who already have technical and academic knowledge that plant costs $250.000 per year to educate appropriate degrees or else provi(e the should improve their performance as 60 people. The range of costs of such an educational opportunity for their own operators and possibly open career onste program are estimated to vary employees to obtain a degree.

paths from which they may have been from $250.000 to 5480.000 per year. The The proposed rule, under Alternatis e excluded in the past. The sos with cost to the utihties of Alternative 2

2. would require a s"parate shift degrees or shift supervisors with would be less since there would be supervisor for each controi room who is enhanced educational credentials fewer shift supervisors to train.

responsible for overall operation of all should be able to respond better to off it is clear that there are numerous fueled units operated by the control normal incidents. While there will be methods that can be used to implement room at all times there is fuelin any of increased training to cover accident the proposed rule with an extreme range 5

I the units. The requirement would only conditions, training alone is not of costs depending on the met :od apply to power reactor licensecs:it sufficient. It is impossible to cover every adopted. It would be a utility's choice as would not apply to licensees for non-es entuality during training. The to which method to adopt, taking into i

l

52724 Fedoes! Registae / Vct. 55, No. 250 / Thursd2y, DecImb:r 29. 1988 / Proposed Rul:s account the various cost and personnel

a. The potentiol unpoet of diffemnces under sec. teto, es stat. osa se amended (4 considerations.

in facility type. design or age on the USC. 2.201(o)).

6. The potentialsafetyimpact of relevancy andpmcticolity of the

2. In l 55.4, a new definition is added 1

changes in plant or opemtional pmposed backfit, in alphabetical order to read as iallows; 1

complexity, including the effect on other ne proposed rule on)y applies to SO proposed and existing regulatory applicants for operation of a nuclear i ssA Deensnone, requimments.

power reactor or to shift supervisors. It There would be no changes in the does not apply to SO applicants or shift

" Accredited university cr college" plant or operational complexity and supervisors for non-power nuclear means an educationalinstitution in the I

hence, no potential safety impact related reactors such as research and test United States which has been approved to them. However, there would be an reactors.

by a regional accrediting body.

effect on the guidance provided in The facility type, design or age should Regulatory Guide 1.8. Relative to have no relevancy to the impact or

3. In I 55.31, a new paragraph (e) is Alternative 1 the guidance in practicality of the proposed backfit. For added to read as follows:

Regulatory Guide 1.8 allows an Alternative 1, the degree to which each applicant for a SO license with a degree utility licensee has already implemented 9 56.31 How to apph, to have only 2 years of responsible an educational program would be most power plant experience, none of which important. Those facilities which have (e) Each applicant for a senior needs to be as a reactor operator. This impemented such a program will clearly operator license to operate a nuclear would have to be revised if Alternative be less affected by the proposed backfit power reactor, after [4 years following 1 is adopted since the proposed than would those facilities that have the effective date of the rule]. rnust have amendment would require a SO not. For Altemative 2. the number of a bachelor's depee in engineering.

apphcant with a degree to serve as a RO reactors and control rooms on a site engineering technology, or the physical at greater than 20 percent power for at would have gmter significance. Those sciences from an accredited university least 1 year. Furthermore, the guidance facilities wluch hase only one control or college. Applicants with other indicates that a RO applicant must have room on their site would be least bachelor's degrees from an accredited a minimum of 3 years of power plant affected by the proposed rule.

institution, or from a foreign college or experence of which at least 1 year shall

9. Whether the pmposedbackfit is university, will be considered on a case.

be nuclear power experience.This iriterim or final and, ifinterim, the by-case basis if the reactor plant would have to be revised since it is justification for imposing the pmposed licensee certifies that the applicant has inconsistent with the proposed backfit on an interim basis.

demonstrated engineering expertise and amendment which implies that an The proposed rule, when made high potential for the senior operator applicant for a RO license with a degree effective, would be in final form and not position. In addition, except as noted in must have 2 years of related nuclear on an interim basis.

paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this power plant experience. Finally, section, after [4 years following the -

position C.I.d of the Regulatory Guide Alternative 1-Requirements for Senlo' effective date of the rule), each would have to be revised to indicate Operators applicant for a senior operator license that a bachelor's degree is the minimum List of Subjects in 1D CFR Part 55 must have at least three years of educational requirement for a SO.

operating experience at a nuclear power candidate rather than a high school Manpower training programs, Nuclear plant, of which one year's experience diploma. Relative to Alternative 2, power plants and reactors. Penalty, must be as a licensed control room current guidance in Regulatory Guide Reporting and recordkeepmg operator for a nuclear power reactor 1.8, Revision 2, April 1987, requirements.

operating at greater than twenty percent

" Qualification and Training of personnel For the reasons set out in the power. At least six months of the for Nuclear Power Plants." states that a preamble and under the authority of the nuclear power plant experience must be i

shift supervisor only needs a high school Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

at the plant for which the applicant I

diploris. This would have to be revised, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974-seeks the license. An authorized if Alternative 2 is adopted, to reflect the as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC representative of the facility licensee new educational credentials and is proposing to adopt the following will serify that the requirements of this experience required to become a shift amendments to 10 CFR part 55.

paragraph have been met as a part of supervisor (i e.,3 years experience with PART 55-OPERATORS' LICENSES ce@ng the apphcaMs quaMicahons 1 year as a RO).

pursuant to paragraph (a)(4) of this l

7. The estimated resource burden in

1. The authority citation for Part 55 section. Any person holding a senior the NRC ossociated with thepmposed continues to read as follows:

0Fator license on {4 years following j

bacAfit and the availability ofsuch the effective date of the rule]is exempt i

Authority: Sece.10'. sct 182. e8 Stat. 939, usources.

,48. 953... amended. see 234. 83 Stoi. 444..s from the requirement to have a

]

It is anticipated that there will be amended (42 U.S C. 2137. 2201,223122821:

bachelor s degree.

l relativcly minor impact on NRC staff secs 201. as amended. 202. 88 Stat.1242 a, (1) For each applicant from a facility resources as a result ofimplementing ame.,d ed. 1244 (42 U.S C. 5841. 5842).

that has not comptr ted preoperational

{

the proposed rule. For Alternative 1, S cMns 55 41. 55 43. f 5 45, and 55.50 also te ting and an initial startup test there may be some increase in the issued t.nder sec. 306. Pub. L 97-425. 96 Stat.

program as described in its Final Safety I

number of applications to process and 002 (42 tt.S C.10r0). Sechon 55 61 also Ar.alysis Report, as amended and l

sued under secs. 188.187. 68 Stat. 935 (42 approved by the Commissic n. and has j

tests to administer, because of the attempts of current ROs to become sos Uh23"

}hs of sec. 223,68 Stat. 958, as not yet been licensed to operate at c pu p prior to the cut-off date, but this should amended (42 U.S C. 2273): il 55.3. 55 21, p wer, the Commisuon may approve not cause a significant impact on the 55.49, and 55 53 are issued under sec teli. 68 alternatives that provide expenence NRC staff. No new resource Stat. 949. as amended (42 U.S C. 22J1(il): and equivalent to operation at twenty requirements are expected.

Il 55 9,55.23. 55.25. and 55 53(f) are issued percent power.

l 1

red:ral Register / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursday. December 29. 1988 / Propossd Rules 52725 (2) For each applicant from a facility and (c). 50 44. 50 40. 50 48. 50 54. and So ao(a) plant that has not completed that has (i) completed preoperational are issued under sec.161b. 68 Stat. 948, as preoperational testing and an initial testing as descnbed in its Fmal Safety a mended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); il 50.10(b) and startup test program as described in its 50

"'"'d""

Analysis Report, as amended and ir[an h nd Final Safety Analysis Report as 3 99 n Ied (42 U C.

approved by the Commission, and (ii)is ll 50 9, 50 55(e). E59(b). 50.70, 50.71. M72, amended and approved by the in an extended shutdown which Sosa, and 50.78 are issued under sec. teio, sa Commission, and has not yet been precludes operation at greater than Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(ojj.

licensed to operate at power, the twenty percent power, the Cornmission

2. In i 50.54, paragraph (m)(3) is Commission may approve alternatives may process the application and may admn.uster the wntten examination and removed and the introductory text to that provide experience equivalent to operating test required by ll 55.43 and parsgreph (m)(2) and paragraph puadon at twenty percent power-55.45 of this part, but may not issue the (m)(2)(ii) are revised, to read as follows:

Dated at Rockville. Maryland wa 23rd day license until the required evidence of f 50 54 Condmons of Heensee, of December.1988.

operation at greater than twenty percent For the Nuclear Regulatory Com.nission.

power is supplied.

(m) * *

• John C. Hoyle.

Alternative 2-Requirements for (2) Notwithstanding any other Acting Seemtoryfor the Commission.

Supervisors provisions of this section. licensees of (FR Doc. 2m3 Filed 12-28-88. 8.45 am) s he List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 50

[g"; **[

j","[en

,oa com me a Antitrust. Classified information. Fire (i) * *

• protection, incorporation by reference.

(ii)(A) For single unit sitea or multiple Int ergovernmental rela tions. Nuclear unit sites with one control room, the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION pow er plants and reactors, penalty, licensee shall have at its site a person Federal Aviation Administration Radiation protection. Reactor sitmg holding a senior operator license for all criteria. Reporting and recordkeepmg fueled units at the site who is assigned 14 CC *e '1 requirements.

responsibility for overall plant operation For the reasons set out in the at all times there is fuelin any unit.

( Airspece Docket No. 84-AEA-41 preamble and under the authonty of the (B) For multiple unit sites with two or Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended. more control rooms, the licensee shall Proposed Alteration of Restricted the Energy Reorganization Act of1974, have at its site a person for each control Area R-6601 Fort A.P. Hill, VA as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC room who: holds a senior operator is proposing to adopt the following license for all fueled units operated by

1. 0"".cy: Federal Aviation amendments to to CFR Part 50.

the control room; and is responsible for Adminstration (FAA). DOT.

overal! operation of these units at all Action: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

PART 50-DOMESTIC LICENSING OF times there is fuelin any of them.

wuum e n uce proposes to ahu PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION Exemptions may be considered on a the boundaries and change the FACILITIES case-by case basis taking into account cted Area

1. The authority citation for part 50 the ph>sicallocation of the control 8b.bl V R

F continues w read as follows:

to ms y

g, Department of the Army has requested an e argement oM-8601 to Auwority: Secs. 102.103.104.105.161.182.

effective date of the rule), each person 954. 955. 950, as amended. sec. 234. 83 Stat.

described in paragraphs (m)(2)(ii)(A) accommodate additional training 183.186.189. 68 S'at. 936,937. 93& 948. 953.

requirements. In addition, the proposed 1244. as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132. 2133,2134.

and (m)(2)(ii)(B) of this section must action would revise the assigned 2135. 22ol. 2232, 2233. 2236, 2239. 2282); seca.

have one or more of the following controlling agency.

i 201. as amended. 202. 206. 88 Stat.1242. as educationalcredentials: A bachelor's j

DATES: Comments must be received on amended. 1244.1240 (42 U.S C. 5841. 5842.

degree from a program accredited by the l

5846).

Accreditation Board for Engineering and r before February 13.1989.

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L 95-Technology (ABET); a professional ADDRESSES: Send comments on the engineer hcense issued by a state proposal in triplicate to: Director. FAA.

ction 10 also a d s

.185.

68 Stat. 936. 955,as a mended (42 U.S.C. 2131.

government: or, a bachelor's degree and Eastern Region. Attention: Manager. Au 2235); sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 an Engineer in. Training (EIT) certificate Traffic Division. Docket No. 88-AEA-4.

U S C. 4332). Sections 50.23. 50.35. 50.55. and that indicates oi.e has passed an Federal Aviation Admini_stration. [FK 50 58 also issued under sec.185.68 Stat. 955 examination administered by a state or Intemational Airport.The Fitzeerald i42 U.S C. 2235). Sections 50.33a 50 55a and other recognized authority.

Federal Building. Jamaica. NY 11430.

Appendix Q also issued under sec.102. Pub.

(D) Except as noted below, after [4 The official docket may be examined L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332).

years following the effectise date of the in the Rules Docket, weekdays. e xcept 12 21 -

rule). each person described in Federal holidays, between 8.30 a m. and 2rf4f se S a Sections 50 58. 50 91, a nd 50.92 also issued pa ragraphs (m)(2)[ii)(A) and (m)(2)(ii)(B) 5.00 p.m. The FAA Rules Docket is under Pub. L 97-415. 96 Stat. 20?3 (42 U.S.C.

of this section must have at least three located in the Office of the Chief 2239). Section 5018 also issued under sec.

years of operating experience at a Counsel. Room 916. 800 Independence 122. 08 Stat. 939 (42 U.S C. 2152) Sections nuclear power plant. of which one year's Avenue. SW., Washington. DC.

50.80-50 81 also issued under sec.184,68 Stat.

experience must be as a licensed control An informal docket may also be 954 as amended (42 U.S C. 2234) Section room operator for a nuclear power examined during normal business hours a en! (42 C 21 J'. A pend

reactor operating at greater than twenty at the office of the Regional Air Traffic

{

issued under sec.187. 08 Stat. 9ss (42 U S C.

percent power. At least six months of vnnon.

the nuclear power plant experience must FoR ruRTHER twoRMAT1oM CONTACT:

)

2237).

F'or the purposes of sec. 223. 68 Stat. 958, as be at the plant for which the person has Paul Gallant. Altspace Branch (ATO-amended (42 U S.C. 2273); ll 5013ta). (b).

responsibility. For each person at a 240). Airspace Rules and Aeronautical

_.a

UNITED STATES o

8 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

o WASHINGTON, D C. 20655 g

<E

\\..+ /

February 22, 1989 o

i The Honorable J. James Exon United States Senator 287 Federal Building 100 Centennial Mall North Lincoln, Nebraska 68508

Dear Senator Exon:

Your constituent, Mr. Jeffrey Boyd, inquired about an amendment that we have This recently proposed to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's regulations.

proposed amendment is entitled, " Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators and Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants" and it Both alternatives are intended to upgrade the contains two alternatives.

operating, engineering, and accident management expertise provided on-shift at This upgrade is expected to enhance the capability of nuclear power plants.

the operating staff to respond to potential accident situations and to These effectively restore the reactor to a safe and stable condition.

alternatives are explained in a bit more detail below and a copy of the Federal Register Notice on this proposal is enclosed for additional information.

.The first alternative would apply to senior reactor operators.- It would

. require that each applicant for a senior reactor operator license have a bachelor's degree in engineering, engineering-technology, or the physical sciences from an accredited college or university. The first alternative would achieve our objective of upgrading by combining engineering expertise and operating experience in the senior reactor operator position, q

The second alternative would apply to persons who have supervisoryIt would responsibilities, such as shift supervisors or senior managers.

require that they have enhanced educational credentials and experience over

{

The desired that which is normally required for senior reactor operators.a bachelor's degree froi

~

educational credentials are:

the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology; a professional' engineer license issued by a state government; or a bachelor's degree and an j

Engineer-in-Training certificate that indicates one has passed a state The second alternative would achieve our objective administered examination.

gfuppamgbycombinjn{engineeringexpertiseandoperatingexperiencein j

j i

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE Offc:

RDB:DRA:RES RDB:DRA:RES Name: *JTelford:jp

• WLahs Date: 2/08/89 2/08/89

'O N Offc: RDB:DRA:RES DRA:RES DD/R:RES D:RES*

E00 Name: *Rosztoczy

• Morris TPSpeis ESBeckjord VStello Date: 2/09/89' 2/10/89 2/13/89 2/13/89 2/ /89 V

0FFICIAL RECORD COPY l

Pb