ML20247R892

Responds to Constituent M Metzner Inquiry Re Proposed Amend to Regulations Entitled, Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants. Fr Pages on Subj Encl

ML20247R892
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/21/1989
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Alicia Dixon SENATE
Shared Package
ML20247R894	List: ML20247R892
References
FRN-53FR52716, RULE-PR-50 CCS, NUDOCS 8904100086
Download: ML20247R892 (14)

Text

- - - - - -- -- . _ _ _ - - - _ _ - - - _ - _ -

3

[ anaQj*g W

/g ' UNITED STATES '

p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

-G

j ' WASHINGTON, D, C. 20555

/  % * * * * * ,/ -

March 21,'1989-

.2. .

The Honorable Alan J. Dixon United States Senate liashington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Dixon:

Your constituent, Mr. W1111am C. Metzner, 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.scfe and stable condition. 'These alternatives are explained yin a bit more detail below and a copy of the Federal Register Notice en 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 4 objective of upgrading.by combining engineering expertise and operating experience in the senior reactor operator position.

The second-alternative would apply- .to persons etho have su'pervisory 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 1 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.

If the first alternative were selected for final promulgation, your constituent, Mr. Metzner, would be exempt (grandfathered) from the degree requirement. The first alternative would become effective four years after final rule prorpulgation. The exemption applies to persons who hold a senior T

[65 FULLTEXT ASCll SCAN ' l 8904100086 890321

: hRE.; E PDC ,

1

a

, t

]

Honorable Alan J. Dixon 2 reactor operator license on the date four years after final rule promulgation.

This exemption would ensure that the experience of all 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 operator license.

If the second alternative were selected for final promulgation, it would become effective four years later. This period would allow shift supervisors f time to complete a degree. Furthermore, the opportunity to complete a degree will be enhanced because 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) obtsin college credit for appropriate nuclear power plant training and work experience through arrangements with the academic sector.

Since the Three Mile Island accident on March 28, 1979, several reports, e.g.,

"TMI-2 Lessons Learned Task Force Status Report and Short-Term Recommende.tions" (NUREG-0578), " Lessons Learned Task Force," (NUREG-0585), "Three Mile Island:

A Report to the Commissioner's and to the Public" (NUREG/CR-1240, the Rogovin report),and"ReportofthePeerAdvisor Commission on Operator Qualifications" (y Panel and the Nuclear RegulatorySECY of academic requirements for reactor operators. The consensus among these reports-was that greater technical and academic knowledge among shift operating personnel would be beneficial to the safety of nuclear power plants. Training, experience, and a high school diploma may not be sufficient to cover every accident situation. The senior operator or the shift supervisor must have sufficient understanding of basic engineering principles, and detailed knowledge of nuclear design and operation to appropriately respond to situations not covered in training. The proposed educational requirements would satisfy the need for greater technical and academic knowledge on shift. However, we are aware of surveys by industry organizations which have identified possible adverse effects of requiring a degree. All the aforementioned studies and public comments, including those from the May 30, 1988 advance notice of proposed rulemaking and the December 29, 1988 proposed rulemaking, will be considered in the development of the final rule.

l .. . .

s

,= 5 Honorable Alan J. Dixon 3 Furthermore, I would emphasize that the specific concerns expressed by your

. constituent, Mr. Metzner, will be considered during our analysis of the public comr.:ents received on this matter. I trust that the above information is responsive to your request.

Sincerely, b

[f/

Victor Steilo, J .

Executive Direct for Operations

Enclosure:

Federal Register notice i

k

-_ _-_______-________-_____-_____-___-___ _ _ _ ___ - _ __ _ - __ a

4 51'726 Fedtral Regist:r / Vcl. 53. No. 250 / Thursday. December 29. 1988 / Prepraed Rules

.V '"==

er 4 imprrters would be invclvsd. %sse 2. Par: graph (a) cf I 94.9 wruld be soon se practicable, the Commissian has importations are insignificant when revised to read as folJows: decided to extend the comment period compand with the 300.000 ee mon for an additional thirty days. The swine that were imported into the o and Park product

, ,, extended comment period now expires United States in 1987 on February 27.tese.

In addaLion. Great Britala has no ek (a) Hog cholera is known to exist m.

[1 e en In Service. herefore, even if Great Britain on ustrbi n . D. .

Republic. Finland. Creat Britain minican at d d and e e Febru 1989. Comments received after this date 27 (England. Scotland. Wales, and Isle of will be considered if it is practical to do were to be recognized as being free of so, but assurance of consideration bog cholera. commerical shipments of Man). Icelan1 New Zealand. Northern Ireland. Norway, the Republic of cannot be given except as to commenta rk products from that country to the nited States would still be prohibited. Ireland. Sweden, and Trust Territory of received on or before this date.

Hus, while ladividuals would be the Pacific Islanda.8 Acoasssse: Mall written comments to:

c!! owed to import small quantities of * * *

• Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory pork and pork products for personal Commission. Washington. DC 20555.

consumption, commercial shipments l'8M f Am*"8'd l Attention: Docketing and Service would continue to be ineligible for 3. Section M.10 would be amended by Branch. Copies of r.omments received importation. adding " Great Bntain (England, may be examined at the NRC Public For these reasons, the amount of pork Scutland. Wales, and Isle of Man)." Document laom. 2120 L Street NW and pork products imported into the immediately after '7mland.". Washington OC.

United States from Great Britain would Dune in Washington. DC this 32 <tay of Deliver comments to:11155 Rockville remain very small, and would have no Decestm ises. Pike. Rockville. MD between 7:30 s.m.

sigrtificant impact on U.&. owies~

jamos W.0losser. and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.

producers. Administmvor. AnimofondMontNeofrh pon runTMan estF0nMaT60N CoeffACT:

Under these circumstances, the inspectioa Service.

Moni Dey. Office of Nuclear Regulatory

- Administrator of the Animal and Plant [m Doc. 06-299t2 &d 12-26 48. 0.45 am) Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Health inpsection Service has eu r. coot sm s6e Commission. Washington. DC 20555.

determined that this action would not Telephone (302) 492-3730.

have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entitles. NUCLEAR REGULATORY

'd R ille.Maryle d this 22 d day

.g c,mte Paperwork Reduction Act CMM For the Nuclear Regulatory Comuniwion.

The regulations in this proposal 10 CFR Part 80 John C. Hoyle, contain no information collection or Actirw Secretary for the Comtnission.

recordkeeping requirements under the Ensuring the Effectiveness of (m Doc. as-299s2 nled 12-2a-as, aos am)

Paperwork Reduction Act of1980[44 Maintenance Programs for Nuclear ,u ,,,,,,, ,, ,, ,

U.S.C. 3501 et seg4 Power Plants; Extension of Comment Ported Executive Order 13372 Nuclear Regulatory MM O M M This program /setivity is listed in the Catalog of FederalDomestic Assistance [ 'I'A' AcTiosc Proposed rule: Extension of Education and Emperience under No.10.025 and is subject to Requirements for Senior Reactor Executive Order 12372. which requires commut puioi Operalors and Supervisors at Nuclear intergovernmental consultation with Power Plants ate suuuanY:On Noveo ber 28.1988 (53 FR fLeials. (See 7 CFR Part 47822) the Commission ublished for Aotncy:Nucleat Regulatory l public comment a rule at would Commlulon.

IJat of Subjects la 9 CFR Part 94 require commercial nuclear power plant AcTiost: Proposed rule.

Animal diseases. Hog cholera linport. licensees to strengthen their IJvestock and livestock products. Meat maintenance activities in order to sueessanY:The Nuclear Regulatory and mest products. Milk. Pooltry and reduce the likelihood of failures and Commission is picposing tc, amend its evnts caused by the lack of effective poultry products. regulations regardmg educational Accordingly 9 CFR Part 94 would be maintmance. The comment period for requirements for operating personnel at omended as follows: this proposed rule was to have expired nuclear power planta.The proposed on January 27.1989.The Nuclear amendments would require additional P ART 94-RINDERPEST, POOT.AND. Management and Resources Council education and experience requirements MOUTH DISEASE. FOWL PEST (FOWL (NUMARC) hes 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 rule. the amnunt of time that the

( AFRICAN SWINE FEVER. AND HOG CHOLER /, PROHIBITED AND NUMARC suggests is required in order alternatives.

to provide meaningful comments on 1gJer the first alternatis.e, the RESTRICT ED IMPORTATION ~

behalf of its member utilities, and the proposed amendment would apply to 1.The authority citstion for Part 94 "I ' operators. it would require th.i desirability of developing a final rule as would continue to read as follows: each applicant for a senior operator Authority: 7 U.S C 147s 150ee.161. 362.

• e see also other prmie6ons of this part and Perts

, e so.19 U.S C 1300. 21 US.C.111.1t es.1348. s2.es sa and arr ot this ctopter i.r einw, reactor have s bachelor s degree in 134b.134c end 134f. 31 U.S.C sica:42 U.S.C proMb.tione end tisincione upon impori.iion et engineering. engineering iechnology, or 4'L31. 4332; 7 Cm 217. 2.51. end 371.2[d). emne and their products. the physical sciences from an accredited

(

rediral Regist:r / Vcl. 53, No. 250 / Thursday, December 29, 1968 / Proposed Rul:s $2717 l univ:rsity or college.De proposid suen.resear7Asty meronesavsose an altzrnate sienne cf providing the amendment would upgrade the necessary technical and sendemic Beck8 *und 1 operating, engineering. and accident knowledge to the shift crew. Option 1 of l management expertise provided on shift Since the Three Mile Islcnd Unit the Policy Statement permits an '

by combining engineery expertise and (TMI-2) accident on March 28,1979,in individual to serve in the combined operating experience in me senior which humen error, among other factors, Senior Operator / Shift Technical operator position. contributed to the consequences of the Under the second alternative, the accident, the issue of academic Advisor (SO/STA) role if that indmdual holds either a bachelor's degree in proposed amendment would apply to requirernents for reactor operators has persons who have supemsory been a mejor concern of the Nuclear engineering. engineering technol[

h f responsibthties, such as shift Regulatory Commission (NRC). In July E ysical .

f**s'e'. 'M'ption O

"'I" 2 permits supervisors or senior managers. It would 1979,"IMI-2 lessons barned Task c nti us a of the separate STA who require that they have enhanced Force Status Report and Short Term educational credentials and experience Recommendations." (NUREG-0578), r istea with the shift and bolds a made specific recommendations for a bachelor's degree or equivalent and over that which is normally requind for meets the criteria as stated in, senior reactor operetors. The proposed Shift Technical Advisor (STA) to amendment would upgrade the provide engineering and accident

• Clarification of TM1 Action Plan operating, engineering. and accident assesstnent expertise during other than Requinments (NUREG-0737).%e management expertise provided on shift normal operating conditions. On Canission also encourages the ahlft October 30,1979, the NRC notified all supervisor to serve in the dual role by combining engineering expertise and operating experience in me sta'rt operating nuclear power licensees of the 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 FR 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 pubbe by Requirements " (NUREG-0737), 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 Comrnission's Policy Statement on and restore the redctor to a safe and position. It identined the STA as a Engineering Expertise on Shift (50 FR stable condition. temporary position pending a 43621) and to ensure that senior patta: Comment period expires Commission decielon regarding long operators have opersting experience on Februafy 27.1w89. Comments received range upgrading of reactor operator and a commercial nuclear reactor operating after 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.. " bot" operating experience (Generic able to assure consideration only for also addressed by the 1979 "Isssons letter 64-16).The ANpRM was the comments received on or before this barned Task Force," (NUREG-0585), result of a Commission decision to date. the 1980 Rogovin report,"nree Mile consider an amendment to its Aponesses: Mail comments to: The Island: A Report to the Commissioners regulations (Parts 50 and 55) and to J Secretarj of the Commission. U.S. and to the Public "(NUREG/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 accident management Docketing and Service Branch. Regulatory Commission on Operator expertise on shift.

Deliver comments to: One White Mint Qualifications " (SECY 82-162).' In addition to describing the proposed Although the 1982 report recommended rule in general, the ANPRM presented a North.11555 Rockville Pike Rockville.

Maryland, between 7.30 a.m. and 4:15 against imposition of a degm list of twenty questions concerning p m. Comments may also be delivered to nqmnmmt the consensus among these various aspects andimplications of the the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Mports was that ater technical and proposed mle. Two hundred letters were Street. Lower Level. NW., Washington, academic knowl e among shift received in response to the ANPRM. A DC between 7.30 a.m. and 415 p.m.

Operati personne would t>e beneficial summary and analys!s of the comments Examine comments received, the to the sa ety of nuclear pown plants, are included in SECY-67-101 dated On October 28.1985, the NRC April 16,1987.The NRC has reviewed,in environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact, and the published in the Federal Register (50 TR detail, all the comments made on the 43 e a po y state n ANpRM as well as comments received regulatory analysis at the NRC Public , p since that time. In general. the Document Room. 2120 L Street.14wer hvel.NW., Washington DC. commenters were opposed to a degree Obtsin single copie: of the 8 Copies of all NURECS referenced may be requirement for senior operators.The

' environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact and the g,'$n",8[ygM',5f,'Q'$,, proposed arnendments in this notice reflect in detail many of the comments US Govemment Pnnt as Ofbce.P O BoWoe regulatory analysis from M.R. Wubnaton. De sootsooez copies mey ei.o be and responses to the questions posed.

Fleishman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Purd*d from th' National 7'chnical Information Apart from the detalled comments on Resea.ch, Washington, DC 20555.

telephone (301) 492-3794. $%.'ue

.un d wpection '

ro,3%3MN'3 g,

PoM or copyins for a fee in the the proposed contents of the rule, a number of general comments were FoR FURTHER INFORMAT)ON CONTACT: NRC Pubhc Document Room, n20 L Street tower provided regarding the possible adverse L*"L NW. Wuh ngt n. DC. efiecta of requiring degrees for senior M R. Fleishman Office of Nucleat *' " $

• Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear cn ic 1 "I*1.$"fedtn$I'[e'". .".E.$'s, operators.The public comments as well Regulatory Commission, Washington, the NRC Pubhc Document Room at t120 L Street. e f. those raised during NRC staff review, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3794. tower ImL Nw. Wuhington. DC. can be categorized ae followa:

e 8 8

53713 Fed:r:1 Rrgistt r / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursday. December 29. 1988 / Preposed Rulia

1. The proposed rule is not necess.q. Concurrent Policy Statement

• '"*"* respor.d to complex tranaisets and I 3,,[of,Y' , "*" The Comn.insion will pubhsh accidents and thereby further ensure the 3= %e propo eJ rule wdi tm a cepetne concurrently with the hnef rule a policy Protection of the health and safety of the impact er safety. w;t statement which encou*uges nuclear pubhc.

g/ 4 1ric proposed naie renldt in a 3:Power enterplant bcenaces, working with the eperatur tarnwer rate The policy statement on engmeermg nuclest industry, to: expertise on shift published in the  ;

5. The proposed rule will basicially Neck the career poth of reactor operateirt resulting 1. Implement personnel pubcies that al 3 on OcWr 28.1m p i in lower marsle- emphastre the opportunitsee for bcensed FR 43f,21) provided an interum method of a There will be less overall expedance so operators to assume positions of increased achieving more engineering capability shift due to the promotion of sos into management responsibihty; on shift. Essentially, with Alternative 1

2. Develop programe that would enable the NRCis moving frominterim m2nagement positions-currently bcensed senior operators. tractor ePeaton and shdt supernaos to obtain requirements which provide engineering The Adviso Committee on Reactor capability for accident condit;ons (the coUege esmes;and SafeFuards (A S) also considered the * *" STA) to requiring engineering preposed requirement and discussed it et several meetinas in 1986 and 19'. '.

ou$1ep,$', "pYa'at tra $*

empenence through arrangements with th, ospabi,hty, and nuclear power plant oper. ting experience,in the same The ACRS strongly supported the academic eccio,. individual (the SO).

concept of having* engineering expertise In Alternative 1. the proposed en each shift. However, they did not bsaloo amendment would require each Egree that requiring a degree for senfor The NRC is concerned that operator applicant for a senior operator SO) eperators was the best approach, though quahfications to deal with accidents license to operate a nuclear rea(ctor, they agreed that specific technical beyond design basis conditions warrant after l4 years following the effective knowledge abould be required. They improvement. Operator training date of the rule . to have a bachelor's beljeved that, because of the concem programs and related emergency degree in engm)ecring. engineering about adverse effects raised by many operating procedures generally do not technology, or the physical sciences knowledgeable individuals, the consider accident conditions beyond from an accredited university or colleF"-

proposed rule should be reconsidered. inadequate core cooling. here is a Applicants with other bachelor's The Commission has carefully general consensus that well qualified degrees from an socredited institution, considered the numerous comments operators can substantially mitigate the or from a foreign college or university, received on the ANPRM as wellas 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 icensee) certifies its deliberations subsequent to the (IDCOR) industry group. for example, that the applicant as demonstrated ANPRM. the Commission considered the has developed arguments that operators engineering expertise and high potential following three options regarding could substantially reduce the risk for the 50 position.The Commission improving engineering expertise on shift: Posed by these conditions.De NRC is does not want to prevent individuals

1. Proceed with the contemplated degree considering the need for more extensive with excellent engineering experience.

rule and concurrent pebey statement as severe accident training and ernergency but with nontechnical de operating procedures as well as becoming sos; however,grees, degree from t$e long ter in a less a Seru engineering qualifications for senior equivalency will no longer be sonopted 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 Ser. lor improved operator capabilities; the approved by a regional accrediting Manager, se described in SECY-es-lor,. Commjssion has decided to request body.

• Proposed Rulemaking Concomins comments on two approaches.The The proposed amendment would Requirements for Senior Managers *'

3. Amend the Policy Statement an proposed amendments would onl) affect apply to applicants for a SO to operate e

' Engineering Expertise on Shift (50 TR 43tet) persons assocated with nuclear power rmelear power reactor. People who held to expbcitly encourage licensecs to develop rebetors.They would not affect persons 50 licenses on [4 years following the associated with non. power nuclear effective date of the rulej would be or in d O/ opb a to phase out resclors such as research and fest exempt f.cm the degree requirement.

see c,f separate STA. reactors. Each alternative approach will Thus, those persons who hold a senior be considered in parallel. Each approach operator license on [4 years following The Commission has decided to is discussed separately.Much of the proposed two alternative amendirents the effective date of the rule). would be discussion of Alternative 2 duplicates " grandfathered"(l.e., a lifetime for consideration and public comment that of Alternative 1 ao that each rney be exemption) by the proposed with the understanding that, following viewed on its own merits. amendment. Even if they were to lose the public comment period, only one alternatis e would be selected for final Ahernofire J-Requirements /or Sem.or O mor their a change in jobs (

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

/

promulgation. The alternatives proposed / e. fill reapply for newaSo $lantr, licensethry could are similst to Options 1 and 2 but with The purpote of this proposed significant differences based on without satisfying the degree alternative is to upgrade the operating. requirement. lt is recognized that comments and further considerstjons by ery;ineering. and accident management *grandfathering" current sos could the Commission following the ANpRM. expertise provided on shift by Although comments received on the result in sos without degrees for en combining both engineering expertisc extended perit d of time. Since the ANPRM were generally unfavorable, the and operatirg 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 beneficial to ha ve a full public airing of approach will enhance the capability of expertise on shift as currently exists, the views on these)p proposals. the operating staff to analyse and STA policy described under options

1. e

4

, i 5 Federal Register / Vrl. 53. No. 250 / Thursday, DecembIt 29, 1968 / Proposed Ru!Is $2M9 and 2 of the October 28.1985 policy of hot" and at leset 3 years tnta! on educational criteria. would have to a

statement (50 PR 4E't) would continue operating experience fer each applicant be reelsed to reflect this atnendment.

in effect. Thus,if two "gundfathere(* for a SO bcense. A RO beense is The concurrent pohc statement is sos are used on shift lthe facihty required in order to get " hot" control intended to encourage beensees licensee wou!d be required to have a room operstmg{xpenence: thus, the (utihties) and the nuclear industry to separate indmdual on shih who has the proposed amen ~..ent expands the prveide incentives and manegement STA education and experience current NRC policy, described in opportunities for sos as well as to described in NUREG-637.lf one of the Regulatory Guide 1.8. Revision 2. dated improve the engineering capabDities of sos bas a degne and one is April 1967, "Quahfication and Training the on shih crew.ne So with a degree

• grandfathered." Option 1 of the pobey of personnel for Nuclear power Plants." and shift operating experience can statement would be satisfied. When all to ensure that sos with degrees have become a valuable personnel resource sos have degrees, the policy statement sufficient operatir.g experience. for 6 otWty, one who combines M would no longer be needed. Regulatory Guide 1.s. In position C.1.e- operational management experience The concurrent policy statement will allows an applicant for a SO license with the potential for star encourage previously beensed sos to with a degree to have only 2 years of management responei lity.ne policy obtain degrees. !c the past the NRC has responsible power lant experience, statement. among other things, wiD accepted equivalents' to the bachelor's none of which nee e to be as a reactor encourage bcennes to provide that degree for a separate STA.The cpera tur. Thos. Regulatory Golde 1.8 career path

• equivalents were based upon will be revised if the proposed De Commfula bebem est specialized utility training or other work amendment is adopted.The proposed requiring a degree will contdbute to the experiences. For the proposed amendment would require the SO 3 al of having sos who beee amendment, however, equivalaney applicant with a degree to serve as a RO opnadual experience, technical and would not be acceptable to the NRC in at greater than 20 rcent power for at academic knowledge, and educational lieu of a degree.Because the lesst 1 year.This es not mean that the credentials that should improve their Comminion is not in a position to reactor must be at power 100 percent of

• operators and possibly evaluate the academic equivalency of the time during the year, bewever, the 1 Peri rm8Dee open carm pa 8'es from which ecy tney utihty training. It encourages utilities to year time period should not include periods of significant downtime for beve been excluded in the past.ne sos seek out academic institutions who will with degrees should be able to respond evaluate the training programs and grant maintenance or refueling (i e periods course credit for such equivalency based that exceed 6 weeks durstion). Special better to off normalincidents.WhDe provisloca are proposed in order to there will be increased trainina to cover upon work experience or specishzed accommodate those appbcants from accident conditions, training alone is not training.Due the concurrect policy sufficient. It is impossible to cover every statement will encourage efforts to have facilities that are unable to operate above twenty percent power doe either eventuality during training. De the training accepted by the colleges for partial credit toward fulfilhas the to (a) the facilities not having completed operators 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 principles, and detailed knowledge of apply to licensed reactor operators facilities being in an extended shutdown nuclear design and operation to (ROs). However, 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 training sessions. In ad:htion, sos with SO position and to other utihty power requirement may be approved by degrees will have greater opportunity for positions. The Comrnission believea a the Commission in the case of facilities professional growth since mey will have degree requirernent for sos on shift, in extended shutdown, the Commission the qualifiestions needed to advance to along with the concurrent policy may process the application and managerial positions. With the chance statement, will not only enhance public administer the written and operatlag for persons! growth should come greater health and safety, but w 11 also enhance tests but would deferissuance of the lob satisfaction.De ealidity of these promotion opportunities for sos. senior operating license until the twenty Deliefs has beenfernforced by the The cutoff date of four years following percent power requirement is fulfilled. experiences of heensed operators the effective date of the rule for This proposed requirement for a SO participating in an ongoing utthty apphcation for a SO heense by applicant with a degree also implies that sponsored program similar to what is individuals who do not have degrees is an applicant for a RO license with a beir proposed herein.The Commission closen for three ressor.s. First. it will degree must only have 2 years of related also elieves that migration of sos allow operators now in training nuclear power plant eAperience.This is upward into plant management wf!!

• suffident time and notice to complete a a change to the guidance in Regulatory contribute to improved plant safety.

degr ee before application. Second. it Guide 1.8 which endorses the American Mernative 2-Requirements for 6hould not cause undue hardship on National Standard, ANSl/ANS-3.1 1981, gyp,,yj,,,

eperators who are now in the process of " Selection. Qualification and Training of preparing and training for the serior personnel int Nuclear Power Plants.- 'The purpose of this proposed cterator heense, and third. licensecs The standard indicates that a RO alternative is to upgrade the operating.

have been encouraged by the policy applicant rr.ust have a minimum of 3 engineering. and accident management St.tement on Engineering Expertise on years of power plant experience of expertise provided on shift by Shift IOption 1) to move toward a dual- which at least 1 year shall be nuclear combining both engineering expertise role SO/STA position. Furthermore, power experience. lf the proposed and operating experience in the shift those operators who are licensed at sos amendment is adopted. it wouhl supervisor or senior anonger function cr. the cutoff date would be supersede the guidance in Reg;1atory described in l 50.54(m)(2)(if) of the

" grandfathered." Cuide 1.8 and necessitate i a revision in regulations. The NRC belies es this will in Alternative 1, the proposed accord with the amendment. Also, enhance the capabihty of the operatics amendment would also require one year position C.1.d of Re;;ulatory Guide 18. sicff to analyze and respor.d to cer. plex 4

1 1

. *52720 Fed:r.! Regist:r / Vol. 53. No. 250 / %ursday. December 29. 1988 / Proposed Rules transients end accidents cnd thereby under options 1 and 2 in the October 28. eperating ext erience f r each shift further ensure the protection of the 1985 policy statement (50 FR 43621) supervisor or senior manager.De health and safety of the public. would be eliminsted since the shift proposed amendment changes the c The policy statement on engineering supervisor would be providing the current NRC policy, described in expertise on shift pubbshed in the engineering expertfee on shift and there Regulatory Guide 1.8. Revision 2. dated Federal Register on October 28,1965 (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. Essentiauy,wuh Alternative 2. for a separate STA.The equivalents states that a shift supervisor only needs the NRC is moving from interim were based upon specialized utility a high school diploma. nus. Regulatory 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 a.nendment, however. amendment is adopted, to reDect the STA), to requiring engineering equivalency would not be acceptable to new educationalcredentials and capability, and nuclear power plant the 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 supenisor or senior knanager, not in a position to evaluate the 1 year as a RO).ne proposed in Alternative 2. the proposed academic equivalency of utility training, amendment would require the shift  !

a.uendment would revise i 50.54. It encouraps utihties to seek out supervisor to serve as a RO at greater l Conditions oflicenses.regarding the academic ir etitutions who will evaluate than 20 percent power for at least 2 requirements for a shift supervisor or the training programs and grant course year.This does not mean that the l 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 notinclude more control rooms.The intent of the will encourage efforts to have the periods of significant downtime for 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 pertial 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 for overall operstion of aD fueled units supervisors. accommodate shift supervisors from operated by the control room at au times The educational credential facilities that are unable to operste there is fuelin eny 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 operators (sos). The concurrent polley initial startup program and being amendraent. on a case.by case basis, for statement will encourage au ROs and licensed to run at power. For such those situations where control rooms sos to obtain the enhanced e fucational facilities, alternative approaches to meet rosy be close to each other.The credentials so that they can propess to the twenty percent power requirement proposed amendment would require the shift supervisor position and to other may be approved by the Commission.

each shift supervisor, after [4 years utility positions.The Commission ne concurrent policy statement is following the effective date of the rule). elieves that the educational intended to encourage licensees to have one or more of the foUowing require t for shift supervisors along (utilities) and the nuclear industry to enhanced educational credentials: A with th trent policy statement. will provide incentives and management bachelor's degree from a program not ont enhance public health and opportunities for shift supervisors as accredited by the Accreditation Board safety, ut will also provide a route for weu as to impros e the engineering for Engineering and Technology (ABET); promoting ROs and sos. By restricting capabihties of tkr on shift crew.De 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 deg+ee 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 stste or other recognized authority. educational credentials and who have operational management experience This requirement will ensure a minirr.um no desire to enter management. with the potential for greater lesel of engineering expertise for each The date of four years following the management responsibility. The policy shift supervisor.The bachelor's degree effective date of the rule for statement. among other things. wiu with the EIT would not necessarily have imp!cmentation of the educational encourage licensees to provide that to be ir, a technical discipline. provided credentials requirement for shift career path: both for shih supervisors the person meets the state education supervisors is chosen for two reasons. and other operating personnel who and e sperience criteria for First. it will allow shift supervisors obtain enhanced educational administration of the EIT.The NRC sufficient time and notice to cornplete a credentials.

reco; .izes that !n some states it may not degree. Second. It'should not cause The Commission believes 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 Engineering having shift supervisors who have either a bachelor's degree from an ABET Expertise on Shift (Option 1) to move operationalexperience andtecimical accredited program or a bachelor's toward a dual. role SO/STA position; and academic knowledge. that should deree 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 availaLk for In Alternative 2, the proposed paths from which they may have been adir.inistering an EIT equivalent 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

? Fedtral Register / Vgl. 53. No. 250 / Dursday. Decernber G.1988 / Proposed Rules $2721 better to off normalincidents. While and throughout the utibty with a safety; othere wm 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 support them.ne proposal for dered sufficient. lt is impossible to cover every invitation to Comment operators was an example of the latter.

es er.tuality during trainirt%e shift in view of the unusual nature of this it is unfortunate that this issue supervisors must have sumcient notice of proposed rulemaking. In which continues to surface. As reflected in the understanding of basic engineering two alternatives are proposed, the earlier public comments on this issue pnnciples, and detailed knowledge of Commission specifically encourages the mere potential for imposition of this nuclear design and operation to comments regardmg comparison of the requirement is having a negative impact appropriately respond to situations that alternatives. Comments are particularly on operator morale.1 continue to bebeve  !

have not been previously covered in solicited in regard to: a requirement for degreed senior I training sessions. In addition. shift

1. Which attemative is preferable swuming oPeretors is (11 advised. Not only is there l supervisors with enhanced educational one will be selected? no demonstrated safety benefit from this I credentials will have greater o portunity 2. What are the potential impacts of sech of oction but there is a significant potentiel for professional growth since ey wiu the attemativu on licensee stamngt for negative safety implications. To once have the qualifications needed to 3 Regardingimplernentation of the attemauves, would bn be a mo'* again publish this proposal will only advance to managerial positions.ne continue the negative im et this is )

Commission also believes that tion gpropriate tran tion period for ch is hW u pW e 4 A ter tive 2 in 1981, the Commission formed a m 8ement ont beo ved d three ddlerent techhical peer review panel to consider overall p3 ant sagety. methodswith expertise foreducat2on demonstrate) credentials, specifically reactor opstor Cocclusion Would some ohr method be deelrable for qualifications including whether a BS Although the Commission believes N'yfo'$ Ntre shou q for oN dho"* * "hd am n ents e n pu ealth *$

pe pie ho m bg letUtaYe Err concluded (ref. -SECY-42-182) that not and safety,it acknowledges that this examination only was there no evidence that a judgment is based on a qualitative 5. Should a requinment be imposed formal degree was necessary for job assessment of the relative contributions nquiring a!! senior operators to peu an Performance but that " imposition of of various factors, some with potential Engineering in Training (ETT) or equivalent such a requirement, without evidence positive impacts and others with examinati n as a messum of buic technical that the requirement is needed to potential negative impacts.%e most expertise in addition to, or instead of, the two perform the job, is likely to result in a Proposals to this notica? If such a deciement in overall performance and si 'ficant positive facter is the ""

ebanced capability of the shift ,",9",'l,MQi e ,I,;", sNe,$, th s p irpublicsafety"(amphasis operating staff to effectively manage cadentiale foe shift 8dd L In spite of nummus studies sorst accidents. Increased operating 6. Independent of e requirement. le conducted by the staff since 1982, there experience of plant management is also there a need for the experience requirmnente is still no evidence that a BS degree is an anticipated longer term benefit. to be increned for the shift supervisa, needed to perform the job of sanfor However, there are ponible Position? An & proposed requirements operator in fact, in the recent report disadvantages. For Alternative 1, they called for in b two alternative suscient? entitled " Human Factors Research and include (1) the potential for lower Additional Views of Commisaloner uclear SafeV. the Neuonal Renarch morale among reactor operators without Roberts Cound Panel on Human Factom degrees whose natural career path, Research Needs in Nuclear Regulatory promotion to the SO level. is blocked. In this proposed rulemaking the Research recommended research in this and (2) the potendal reduction of overall Commission is considering two area prior to making a degree operating experience on shift as sos alternatives regarding educational mandatory.ne panel considered this with degrees move to other work.For requirements for operstmg personnel. research a high priority as "(a)n Alternative 2. the disadvantages include ne first alternative, which is an old injudicious reguladon could lead to the potential for lower morale among proposal, would impose a degree problems with both morale and senior operators without degrees whose requirement in senior operators. He recruiting without necessarily improving promotion to the shift supervisor level is second alternative would require safety."

thck ed. enhanced educational credentials for Although I agree that it is valuable to Upon consideration of these and other supervisory personnel. Although I have have personnel with operating fa: tors sui.h as those identified by the not reached a judgment on the need for experience in utility management, it is pblic comment process on the ANPRM. supervisory personnel to have enhanud inappropriate to attempt to accomplish the Commission concludes. at this time, educational credentials,1 am supporting this objective by so severely penaliring that the overall effect of the proposed the publishing of the second alternative reactor operators and senior operators.1 a r.er.dments would be beneficialand 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. I cannot do individual a good manager merely by improved quality of the operational so. obtaining a degree. nose individuals personnel and by plant management Since I have been a member of the with motivadon md ability will pursue that has a better understanding of the Commission, there have been numerous a degree to imprn e their qualifications.

unique operational problems associated proposals dealing with the slee. nere are cunently a significant number with nuclear power reactor operations. qualifications and organization of the of senior operators who have degrees.

The Commission believes that operating crew at nuclear power plants. His should provide a eufficioJ pool of increasing the educationallevelof the Several of these proposals were adopted individuate resulting in an infusion of operating staff willincrease by the Commission because it was operating exerience into utility professionalism both in the control room determined that they would enhance management.

ma

I, 52722 Fed:ral Register / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursday. December 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules

. I believe that the Commission and the Reduction Act of1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et comped to larger organisatione in the ame industry have put in place a number of seq.). Existing requirements were business community.

programs which have upgraded and will approved by the Office of Management 2. How the proposed regulations could be cor.tinue to upgrade the qualifications of and Budget approval numbers 3150 mWad to take into account their differms esede or capabihties, reactor operators. In aclition. the 0011. 3150 0018. and 3150 0000 increased recognition of the importance s. The benefits that would accrue. or the Regulatory Analysis detriments that would be avoided. if the of well qualified operators will continue l The Commission has prepared a draft Pro daned as to pay dividends in the future. A number euge b mm i of utihties are providing opportQes regulatory analysis for this proposed 4. How the proposed resu$tions. as for their operators to further then regulation.The analysis examines the modified. would more closely equeuse the education. I fully support and encourage costs and benefits of the alternatives impact of NRC reguladone or create amore these initiatives. Hese programs win considered by the Commission. The equal access to the benefits of Federal allow those with ability and desire to draft regulatory analysis is available for programs as opposed to providing special progress up the management chain.I am inspection and copying for a fee at the advantases to any individuals or youpe.

NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L 5. How the proposed regulations, as confident that these initiatives will **d2f'ed, would stiH adequately protect the enhance the safe operation of our Street. Lowerlavel. NW Washington. i nuclear power plants. However, one can DC. Single copies of the analysis may be pubbc health and safety. l not expect immediate results.These obtained from M. R. Fleishman. Office of ne comments should be ent to the initiatives take time to show Nuclear Regulatory Research. Secretary of the Commission. US improvements. Washington. DC 20555, telephone (301) Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

When commenting on Altemative 2 of 492-3794. . Washington, DC 20555. Attentioru the proposed rulemakingI willbe The Commission requests public Docketing and Service Branch.

particularly interested in comments comment on the draft analysis.

Backfit Analysis .

concerning 2e viability of this proposal. Comments on the draft analysis raay be To be viable. this proposal must allow submitted to the NRC as indicated under As required by 10 CFR 50.109. the for the ortlerly progression of operating the Apomasses heading. Commission has completed a backfit personnel through the ranks from Regulatory Mexibility Certification analysis for the proposed rule.ne auxihary operatot 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 posed from the perspective of current the Commission certifies that this rule. If rule will provide a substantia crease operating personnel, bow accessible are promulgated, will not have a significant in protection to ublic health and safety ABET accredited engineering programs? economic impact upon a substantial or the common efense and security at a If the PE or EIT options are selected, number of small entitles. Dis proposed cost which is justified by the substantial which states allow registration and/or rule effects only the licensing and increase. ne backfit analysis on which o tation of nuclear power plants. It classification as an EIT without an a{so affects individuals licensed n g,g, this dethnationis bM M u ABET accredited degree? In hght of the fact that states require work experience operators at these plants.De men e, . objectn, ee to be registered as a PE and, with a non. companies that own these plants and g, Mepropusedbo fitis designedio accredited engineering or related degree, the individual plant employees licensed g#8- .

often require work experience to be to operate them do not feu within the scope of the definition of"small The objective of the proposed ruleis classified as an EIT. will state to upgrade the operating, engineering.

registration boards grant credit for entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business and accident management experties operating e$perience as " acceptableSize Standards set out in regulations provided on shift by combining both professional experience . . . of a grade issued by the Small Business engineering ex ertise and operating and character indicating that the Administration in 13 CFR part 121. Since experience in e senior operator or shift applicant may be competent to practice supenisor functions.

engineering"? If credit is granted for these companies are dominant in their ,

operating experience. does this service areas. this proposed rule does 3. General description of the activity experience have to be acquired after not fall within the purview of the Act. that would be required by the licensee However because there may be now or opp); cant in order to cornplete the

,g,g7,,y or in the future small entities which will

,,e,;N!so Iw be interested in comments backfit.

In response to Questions 4. 5 and 6 of provide licensed operators to nuclear The proposed rule, under Altemative power plants on a contractual basis, the 1. would require each applicant for a the Invitation to Comment.

NRC is specifically seekirg comment as senior operator (SO) license to operate a EnvironmentalImpact-Categorical to how the regulations w!u affect them nuclear power reactor, after N years Exclusion and how the regulations may be tiered following the effective date of the rule).

The NRC has determined that this or otherwise modified to impose less to have e bachelor's degree in proposed regulation is the type of action stringent requirements on them while engineering engineering technology.or described in categorical exclusion 10 still adequately protecting the pubhc the physical sciences from an accredited heahh and safety. nose small entities university or college. Applicants with CFR 51.223)(1). Therefore. neither an environmental impact statement nor en which offer comments on how the other bachelor's degrees from 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 l Paperwork Reduction Act Statement following items: the utility (licensee) certifies that the This proposed rule does not contain a 1.The size of their business and how the applicant has demon 6trated engineering new or amended information collection proposed regulations would result in a expertise and high potential for the SO requirement subject to the Paperwork significant economic burden upon them as position. %e Commission does not want i

. I

.s

'. .' Fed:rst Register / Vcl. 63. No. 250 / nursday. December 29, 1968 / Proposed Rules $2723 t) prev:nt individuals with excellent power nuclear react:rs such ce research aperat:rs 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: however, degree equivalency will requirement. may be permitted, on a nuclear design and operation to no longer be 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 United each other. Each shift supervisor, after training sessions. In addition. sos with States which has been approved by a l4 years following the effective date of degrees or shift supervisors with regional accrediting body. the rule . would need to have one or

. Th proposed amendment would snore of]the following enhanced have enhanced educational credentials wiu greater opportunity for apply only to applicants for a 50 license educational credentials: A bachelor's professional g 3 vth since they wfil have to operate a nuclear power reactor. degree from a program accredited by the the qualifications needed to advauce to People who hold SO licenses on [4 years Accreditation Board of Engineen'ng and managerial positions. De Commission following the effective date of the rule] Technology (ABET); a professional would be exempt from the degree believes that there will also be en engineer bcense issued by a state improvementin plant safety as sos or requirement. Those persons who hold a government; or, a bachelor's degree and shift supervisors inigrate upward into senior operator license on [4 years an Engineer-in Training (EIT) certificate following the effective date of the rule] plant management although this that indicates one has passed an improvement could be counter balanced, would be " grandfathered" by the examination administered by a state or in part. by a potential reduction in proposed rule.The proposed other recognized authority.This requirement will ensure a minimum overall operating experience on shift as amendment would not apply to SO applicants for non power nuclear level of engineering expertise for each sos with degrees move to other work.

reactors such as research and test shift supervisor. The bachelor's degree 4. Potentic/s.mpoet on radiological reactors. l.f eensed reactor operator with the EIT would not necessarily have '#P080 0//0Ciliff **P OF8'8- I (ROs) would not be required to have a to be in a technical discipline provided Dere 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"het"(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 'or a SO license.

• bot" 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 applicants from senior manager. Special provisions in exposure.

facilities that are unable to operate would be proposed to accommodate s. Installation and continuing costs those applicants from facilities that are  !

above 20 percent power. associated w'th the backfit. including The proposed requirements of unable to operate above to percent the cost oftocility downtime or the cost Alternative 1 would only apply to power power. ofconstruction delay, rea ctor licensees indirectly. Ther, 3.Potentialchoose in the risk to the One of the questions posed in the May

' would be no modification of or addition publicfrom the occidentoloffl. site 30,1986 ANpKM. relative to Altemative" l to the organization. i.e. administrative release ofrodioactwe matena 1. concerned what the implementation and functional structure. required to it is not feasible to quantitatively evaluate the change in risk to the public and operation costs of the proposed operate a nuclear power reactor as a as a result of the proposed rule. net is. amendment would be to the utilities.

result of this proposed amendment The cost estimates received ranged from because: the effect of the SO or shift supervisor p ' " " negligible to prohibitive Various

1. the person to abom the sos report [ 'cjdent the arge the scenarios for achieving the desired would not change: staffing level of sos with degrees were l 2. the number of 50s per ahlft would not d f

{,0babilcident as a resulUof r qu$ng assumed. efther These varied from hiring l

3.Yhe' toi.1 number of operstors per shiftthe SO to have a bachelor's degree or individuals with degrees and passm, s ]

m ould not change; the shift supervisor to have enhanced them through the normal utility training

4. the training requirements, written educational credentials is not known. programs to taking ROs and sending

, eneminations and operating tests for a 60 The Commission believes that requiring them to college while either paying them would not change: and degrees for sos or enhanced at overtime rates or hiring replacement

5. the tasks performed by a 50 would not ROs. A utility could also irnplement an change.

educational credentials for shift supervisors will contribute to the goal of onsite college degree program for its However, the power reactor licensees hasing sos or shift supervisors who opnetors. for example, a program would have to get new sos from a group have operational experience and currently being mn for an opnatmg i of individuals who already have technical and academic knowledge that plant costs 3250.000 per year to educate l appropriate degrees or else provide 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 onsita program are estimated to vary employees to obtain a degree. paths from which they may have been from $250.000 to $480.000 per year. The The proposed rule, under Alterr.ative excluded in the past. The sos with cost 'o the utilitics of Altemative 2

2. would require a separate shift degrees or shift supervisors with wouli be less since there would be supervisor for each control 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 char 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 propc sed rule with an extreme range the units.The requirement would only conditions, training alone is not of costs depending on the method apply to power reactor licensees:it sufficient. It is impossible to co.er every adopted. It would be a utility's choice as would not apply to licensees for non- eventuality during training. The to which method to adopt, taking into I

a

• 52734 Fedaeal Registae / Vcl. SS. No. 250 / Thursday. DecembIt 29. 1988 / Proposed Ruhe cec:unt the vadous cost end personnel 4. yhe potentialimpoet of differences ander sec. tot os O Stat. eso, as anwnded kt considerations. in facility type, design or age on the U34 2301io)).

8. Thepotentialsafetyimpact of relevancy andpractinlity of the

. changes in plant or operational proposed boch*it. 2. In l 65.4. a new definitionin added in alphabetical order to reed as follows-'

congplexity including the efect on other ne proposed rule only applies to SO proposedandexisting regulatory applicants for operation of a nuclear I ** 4 I>eennene, requirements. power reactor or to shift supervisors. it * * * *

• nere would be no changes in the does not apply to SO app!! cants or shift

• Accredited university or college" plant or operational complexity and supervisors for non-power nuclear means an educational institution in the bence. no potential safety impact related reactors such as research and test United States which has been a to them. However, there would be an reactors. by a regional accrediting body. pproved effect on the guidance provided in %e facility type. design or age should * * * *

• Regulatory Guide 1A. Relative to have no relevancy to the impact or g. In i 56.31. a new para Alternative 1. the guidance in practicality of the proposed backfit. For added to rud as follows: graph (e)la Regulatory Guide 1A allows an Alternative 1. the degree to which each applicant for a SO license with a degree utility licensee has already implemented 9 56J1 How to appy.

to have only 2 years of responsible an educational program would be most * * * *

• power plant experience, none of which important.%ose facilities which have (e) Each applicant for a senior

.- a reactor operator.This implemented such a program will clearly operator license to o ate a nuclear needs would haveto beto as,be revised if Alternative be less affected by the proposed backfit power reactor, after years following 1 is adopted since the proposed than would those facilities that have amendment would require a SO the effective date of e rule). anust have not. For Alternative 2. the number of a bachelor's depee in engineering.

applicant 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 greater significance.Those sciences from an accredited university least 1 year. Furthermore, the guidance facilities which have only one control or college. Applicants with cther 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 t year shall g, whether the proposedbackfit is university. will be considered on a case.

be nuclear powet experience.This interim orfinoicad. ifinterim. the by case basis if the reactor plant would have to be revised since itis justification for iciposirg the pmposed licensee certifles that the applicant has inconsistent with the proposed backfit on an interior 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.1.d of the Regulatory Guide Alternative 1-Requiromants for Senior 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 minimam Ust of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 55 must have at least three years of educational requirement for a SO . o candidate rather than a high school Manpower training programs. Nuclear pbrating experience at a nuclear power power plants and reactors. Penalty, of which one year's aparlance

. diploma. Relative to Altemative 3, must be as a licensed control room current guidance in Regulatory Calde Reponing and recordkeeping requirements. operator for a nuclear power reactor 1 A Revision 2. April 1967, operating at greater than twenty percent

Qualification and Training of Personne] 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 shift supervisor only needs a high school Atomic Energy Act of 1954. as amended. et the plant for which the applicant diploma.This would have to be rrvised, the Energy Reorganization Act of1974.

as amended, and 5 U.SsC. 553. the NRC seeks the license. An authorized if Alternetise 21s adopted, to reflect the representative of the facilitylicensee riew educational credentials an3 is proposing to adopt the following will verify that the requirements of this experience required to become a shift amydmnts to 10 CFR pad 55. para aph have been met as a part of supervisor li e 3 years experience with cert' ying the applicant's qualifications 1 year as a RO). PART SS-OPERATORS' UCENSES pursuant to paragraph (a)(4) of this

7. The estimatedresource bcnfenin 1.The authority citation for Part 55 section. Any person holding a senior the NRCossociated with theproposed continues to read as follows: operator license on [4 yes'rs following bockfit andthe availabl/ity ofsuch the effective date of the rule]is exempt Authority Sece 107.161.182,88 Stat. 939.

resources. 946. 953, as a mended, sec. 234. 83 Sat. 444. es from the requirement to have a It is anticipated that there will be amended (42 U.S C 2137. 22o1. 2232,2282): bachelor's degree.

relatively minor impact on NRC stoff sees 201, se amended. 202, as Stat.1242, as (1) For eoch applicant from a facility resources as a result ofimplementing amended.1244 (42 U.S C 6841. EB42). that has not completed preoperational the proposed rule.For Alternative 1, Sections 55.41. 65 43. 55 45. and 55.59 also testing and an initial startup test there may be some increase in the issued under uc. 306. Pub. l.97-425. 96 Stat. program as described in its Final Safety number of applications to process and 2262 (42 U.S C 10226). Section 55.61 also Ar.alysis Report. as amended and tests to administer because of the issued under uca.186.187. 88 Stat. 955 (42 approved by the Commission, and has attempts of current ROs to become sos ofi[p ,'s of sec. 223. 68 Stat.958. as not yet been licensed to operate at prior to the cut-off date, but this should amended (42 U.S C 2273); 1155.3. 55.21 power, the Commission may approve not cause a significant Impact on the 55.49, and 55.53 are issued under sec.1611. 68 alternatives that provide experience NRC staff. No new resource $:st 949. as amended (42 U.S C 2201(i)); and equivalent to operation at t 'snty '

requirements are expected. Il 55.9. 55.23. 65.25. and 55 53(f) are luved percent power.

Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 250 / Thunday. Dec1mber 29,1988 / Prop:eed Rules $2725 i J

(2) Fcr each applicant from a freility cnd (cl. no 44, so 46. so es so 54. cnd so.a0(el plant that has n2t complet:d that has (i) completed preoperational are inued under sec. selb. so Sis t. eea. as l preoperational testing and an initial '

' ' '8t program as described in its

. alysis Repor e ame d an i andso Stat. 949. as amended (42 USC 220t h)): and e seIh1 f[g 7,,y Analysis Report, as 1 approved by, the Commission. and (ii)is il 50 9. 60.56(e) so.se(b). 30.7o. a0.71, so.72, amended end approved by the In an extended shutdown which l 80.73, and 50.78 are inued under sec.161o. 88 Commission, and has not yet been i precludes operation at greater than Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C 2201(c)). licensed to operate at power, the twenty percent power, the Commission Commission may approve alternatives may process the app!! cation and may 2.In 150.54,paragm h m)p)is removed and th introfuc(tory uxt tothat provide experience equivalent to administer the wntten examination and operation at twenty percent power-o,e, sung lesi,eq*ed by ii n.4 and -a-,h W -d -a.re l (m)(2)(ii) are mvind, to read pa follows: . . . . .

55.45 of this part. but may not issue the Deted at Rockville. Maryland this 23rd day license until the required evidence of I 80.54 condesna of Boonaan. of December.1ses, operation at greater than twenty percent . . . *

• For the Nuclear Regulatory Comalulon.

power is supplied. (m) * *

• Joha C Hoyle, Alternative 3--Requirements far (2) Notwithstanding any other Actigsecretary/orthe commluion. i Supervisors provisions of this section licensees of

• ' 11meei the p1t Nc.29993 %d 12-2sas. Eos am) )

,,g ,,, ,,,, ,,, .

IJet of Subjectsin to CFR Part 50 "[g * ,,g$^ ' ,e Antitrust. Claulfied information, Fire (1) * *

• protection, incorporation by reference, (ii)(A) For single unit sites or multiple j intergovernmental relations. Nuclear unit sites with one control room, the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION power plants and reactors. penalty, licensee shall have at its alte a person Radiation protection, Reactor siting holding a senior operator license for all Federal Aviation Administration criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping fueled units at the site who is assigned 14 CFR Part 78 requi ements. responsibility fcr overall plant operation For the reasons set out in the at all times there is fuelin any unit. (Almpose Docket No. 86-AgA-41 l preamble and under the authority of the (B) For multiple unit sites with two or Atomic Energy Act of1954, as amended. more control rooms, the !!.censee shall Troposed Alteration of Restricted the Energy Reorganlution Act of1974, have at its site a person for each control Area R.4601 Fori A.P. Hill, VA i as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC toom who: holds a senior operator I AotNcy: Federal Aviation is proposing to adopt the following license for all fueled units operated by amendr.ients to 10 CFR Part 80. the control room: and is responsible for Administradon (FAA). DOT.

overall operation of these units at all ACvicec Notice of proposed rulemaking.

PART 00-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF times there is fuelin any of them. SuomAsty: a notice proposes to alter PRODUC'110N AND UTlu2ATION Exemptions may be considered on a FACILITIES the boundaries and change the case.by-case basis taking into account Re tricted Area 1.The authority citation for Part so the physicallocation of the control 7%'$,c s

continues to read as follows: Department of the Army has requested 4 yurs following b an n!argement of W to Authority: Sees.102.103.104.106.181.182, e la3. ta6.189. 66 Stat. 936. 937,93& 94a. 053. E accommodate additional training 954.955.956. se amended sec. 234. 83 Stat. effective descrig,g in paragraphs date of (the rule]'m)ach (2)(ii)(A) 'roon requirements. in addition, the proposed 1244. as amended (42 USC 2132. 2133. 2134. and (m)(2)(ii)(B) of this section must action would revise the assigned 2135, 2201. 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239. 22 art wcs. have one or more of the following 201, as amended. 202. 206,88 Stat.1242 as educational credentials: A bechelor's controllI"8 '8'"'F' amended.1244.1246 (42 USC nest. sa42. degree from a program accredited by the DATES: Comments must be received on Sa46). Accreditation Board for Engineering and or before February 13,1980.

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L es- Technology (ABET); a professional Aponsssss: Send comments on the t2 ste SC .

proposal in triplicate to: Director, FAA.

,1as, engineer license issued by a state Q',','.@936,955.

68 Stat g ,i, as ,

amended (42 government; U.S or, aC 2131.

bachelor's degree and Eastern Region, Attention: Manager. Air an Engineer.in. Training (EIT) certificate Traffic Division. Docket No. 86-AEA-4, l 22351: sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 83 Stat. 853 (42 U S C 4332). Sections 50.23, 50.35. 50.55. and that indicates one has passed an Federal Aviation Admini.stretion,JF1C So.56 also issued under sec.185.te Stat.955 examination administered by a state or International Airport,The Fitzgerald (42 U.S C. 2235) Sections 50.33a. 50 55a and other tecognized authority. Fedetal Building. Jamaica. NY 11430.

I.pndix Q also issued under sec 101 No. (D) Except as noted below, after (4 The official docket may be examined L 91-190. 83 Stat. 653 (42 USC 4332). years following the effective date of the in the Rules Docket, weekdays, except

"" ' Fedetal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and 2 .S rule). each person described in c2 se S a . 22 paragraphs (m)(2)(ii)(A) and (m)p JW)(U) 5:00 p.m.The FAA Rules Docket is Sections 50.58,50 91, a nd 50.92 also issued under Pub. L 97-415. 90 Stat. 2073142 USC of this section must have at least three located in the Office of the Chief 2239). Section 50.78 also issued under sec. years of operating experience at a Counsel. Room 916,800 Independence 122. e6 Stat. 939 (42 USC 2152) Sections nuclear power plant, of which one year's Avenue. SW., Washington. DC.

50 ao-5o 81 also issued under sec te4. 68 Stat. experience must be as a licensed control Aninformaldocket may also be 954, as amended (42 USC 2234) Section room operator for a nuclear power examined during normal business hours reactor operating at greater than twenty at the office of the Regional Air Traffic a en (42 . 138). A pen x e issued under sec. ter, es Stet 955 (42 U S C. percent power. At least six months of Division.

the nuclear power plant experience must Fon runTHEn INFoRIAAfloN CONTACT:

2237).

For the purposes of see. 223. 08 $!st 958, as be at the plant for which the person has paulCallant. Altspace Branch (ATO-amended (42 USC. 2273): il 3010ts). (b), responsibility, For each parson at a 240). Altspace Rules and Aeronautical I

L------ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Honorable Alan J. Dixon 3 Furthermore, I would emphasize that the specific concerns expressed by your constituent, Mr. Metzner, 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, Ongha! s; grad by 1

, Wtx StCo. Jr. l Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

Federal Register notice

\

Distribution: [ HONORABLE ALAN DIXON]

subj-circ-chron RDB Reading Files ESBeckjord TPSpeis DFRoss BMorris ZRosztoczy Wlahs JTelford f1Fleishman SECY CRC-89-0179 MBridgers, ED0-4304 EDO Reading TMurley, NRR PDorm, RES-890098 OCA

• SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE ,

Offc: RDB:DRA:RES RDB:DRA:RES 1 Name: *Telford:jp *WLahs Date: 3/14/89 3/14/

Offe: DRA:RES DRA: S D  : ES D:, S (p0b OCA6 Name: *ZRosztoczy *BMorr. S is ESBe jord V6tello JBradburne Date: 3/15/89 3/ /89 3/r /89 3/lG89 3/)d/89 3/p/89 <

9 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - _ - - - - - _ - . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ - - - . _ - - - - - - ---- - -- l