ML20248A517

Discusses Constituent,Ct Gorton Inguiry About NRC Proposed Amend to Regulations Entitled, Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants. Fr Pages on Subj Encl

ML20248A517
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/16/1989
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Upton F HOUSE OF REP.
Shared Package
ML20248A522	List: ML20248A517
References
FRN-53FR52716, RULE-PR-50 CCS, NUDOCS 8904100233
Download: ML20248A517 (13)

Text

, . . ... ..

/

2 f

k p, .

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555

'O3 j

• March 16,1989 i

The Honorable Fred Upton United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Upton:

Your constituent, Mr. Chris Thomas Gorton, inquired about an amendment that we have recently proposed to the Nuclear Regulatory Comission'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 respona 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 pcsition. l 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 serior 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 l 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. Gorton, would be exempt (grandfathered) from the degree requirement if he is a senior reactor operator. The first alternative would bem effective four years after final rule promulgation. The exemption app. ' to persons who hold a senior reactor operator l' cense on the date four years hfter 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 (,CS b operator license.

8904100233 990316 .

PDR COMMS NRCC u_ ___ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _________ CORRESPONDENCE PDC

w .

2 b '

If the second alternative were select.ed for final promulgation and your constituent, Mr. Gorton, desired to be a shift supervisor, the second alternative would apply.

Concurrently with the amended final rule on this matter, the Ccnmission intends to publish a policy statement which encourages nuclear power plant licensees to: 1) implement per:;onnel 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 re6ctor operators, reactor operators, and shift supervisors to obtain college degrees; and 3) obtain college credit for appropriate nuclear power plant training and work experience through arrangements with the academic sector.

Finally, I would emphasize that the concerns of your constituent, Mr. Gorton, 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, Oj

/f]

/e ' //t! )

6 fctor Stello, Jr. /

ExecutiveDirect_fo for Operations

Enclosure:

Federal Register notice I

i l

I

. 52NG Fed:ral P.egist:r / Vcl. 63. No. 250 / Thursday. December 29, 1968 / Proposed Rules er e irhporters'would be invstv2d. Daae 2. Paragraph (a) of l 94.6 wruld be soon as practicable the Comunisolan has

.- decided to extend the comment period importations are insignificant when revised to read as follows:

compend with the 300.000 er mare for an additional thirty days.The o extended comment period now expires swine that were imported into the and(Qeus a United Stales in 1987. .

on February 27,1980.

(a) Hog cholera is known to exist in In addition. Great Britain has no rk su countries of the world eacept oATE:The comment period has been processing plants that are approve y Australia. Canada. Denmark. Dominican extended and now expires February 27, the USDrs Food Safety and Inspection 1989 Coman Republic, Finland. Crest Britain . L y d _after ths,s date hrvice. nartfore, cven !! Great Brite!n =--------~.-r-----.t-.,.o  ;

were to be recogmud as being free of England. Scotland, Wales, and tale of so, but assurance of consideration Man), laeland. New Zealand. Northern hog cholera. commerical shipments of Ireland. Norway, the Repubbe of cannot be given except as to comments  ;

rk products fross that country to the Ireland, Sweden, and Trust Territory of received on or before this date.  ;

nited States would still be prohibited.

the Pacific talands.8 Aeonesses: Mail written comments to: i nus, while individuals would be a * * *

• Secretary. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ellowed to import small quantitios of Commission. Weshington. DC 20555, pork and pork products for personal I A*c"8'O Attention: Docketing and Service consumption. commercial shipments 3. Section 94.10 would be amended by Branch. Copies of comments received wouid continue to be inelqpble for adding " Great Bntain (England. may be examined at the NRC Public importation. Scotland. Wales, and Isle of Man)? Document Room. 21201. Street NW.,

For these reasons, the amount of pork immediately after TmlandT. Washington, DC.

and pork products imported into the United States from Great Britain would Dune in Wuhington. DC this 22 day of Deliver comments to:11155 Rockville remain very small, and would have no December issa- Pike. Rockville. MD between 7:30 a.m.

significant impact on U.S. swine lames W. 01oner. and 415 p.m. weekdays.

producers. Administered. AnimofondMontNeo/th pon runTMan eseronuATioN CONTACT:

Und Inspection Service. Moni Dey, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Admmer istrator these of thecircumstances, Ammal and Plant the (m Doc. es-2er12 Ned 12-2648, a 45 am) Research. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Health inpsection Service has ou,'8 coos s*s&* Commission. Washington, DC 20555.

determined that this action would not Telephone (301) 693-3730.

have a significant economic impact on a Deled at Rockville. Maryland this 22nd day substantial number of small entities. MUCLEAR REGULATORY of December 1 sea COMMISSION For the Nuclear Regulatory comunfulon.

Paperwork Reduction Act 10 CFR Port 60 John C Hoyle.

The regulations in this proposal Aegiry Secretaryfor she ("ommission.

contain no information collection or Ensuring the Effectiveness of rscordkeeping requirements under the [FR Doc. as-2s992 Filed 12-2&48.145 ani)

Maintenance Programs for Nucisar m,,,,,,,

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 Power Plants; Extension of Comment U.S.C. 3501 et seg.).

Ported Executive Order 13373

• • ""8.t Nuclear Regulatory MNOMM This program / activity is listed in tha Commission.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Education and Esperience Actione Proposed rule: Extension of Requirements for Senior Reactor under No.10.025 and is sub}ect to comment period.

E.xecutive Order 12372, whleb requires Operators and Supervtaors at Nuclear intergovernmental consultation with suumany: On November 28.1988 (53 FR Power Plants te fucials. (See 7 CFR Part 47822) the Commission published for AosNcw Nuclear Regula'ory pubhc comment a rule that would Commission.

Ust of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 require comrnercial nuclear power plant Actiou:! Proposed rule.

licensees to strengthen their Animal diseases. Hog cholera. import.

Uvestock and hveetock products. Meat and mest products. Milk Pooltry and mai d bb events caused by the lack of effective a ad sumuAny:The Nuclear Regulstory mimui n 18 proposmg to amend its rest 4ations regardmg educational poultry products.

Accordingly. 9 CFR Part 94 would be '" girements for operating personnel at fhfs pose le was o have expl ed nucle 8r power plants.The proposed amended as follows: on lanua'Y 27,1989 The Nuclear amendments would require additional PART 94-RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND. Management and Resources Council education and experience requirements MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL (NUMARC) has requested a six day for senior operators and supervisors. In PLAGUE), NEWCASTLE DISEASE extension of the comment pen, in promulgating the proposed amendments.

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

( AYl AN PNEUMOENCEPHAUTIS). rule, the amount of time that the AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, AND HOG alternatives' NUMARC suggests is required in order tInJet the first allemative, the CHOLERfe PROHIDITED AND to provide meaningful comrnents on RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS behalf ofits member utilitien, and the proposed amendment would apply to 1.The authority citation for Part 94 senior operators.! would require that desirability of developly e 70! rule as each applicant for a senior operator would continue to read as follows: lice se t perate a nuclear power Authority: 7 U.S C 147e.1soee.1st,182. . s, age ,is,, p,ousica* A hv : 'd Paris reactor have a bachelor,s degree in 4 Lo.19 U.S C 1300. 21 U.5 C.111. stoa.1344. sz. es. et and 327 of oue ctepw h r 1341,.134c. end 134L 31 U.S.C 9tol; 42 U.S C prohib.tions and et sinchune upon importo.on of engineering. engineering iechnology, or emne and theit producis- the physical sciences from an accredited 4331. 4332: 7 Cm 2.17. 2.51. and 371.2(d).

Federal Regist:r / Vol. 53, No. 250 / Thursday Decembzt 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 52717 university or college.The proposed suPPLasstarrAny asPOstesAD0sc an alternate means of providing the amendment would upgrade the necessary technical and academic B d pound knowledge to the shift crew. Option 1 of operating. engineering, and accident management expertise provided on shift Since the Three Mile Island Unit the Policy Statement permits an by combining engineering expertise and (TMI-2) accident on March 28,1979, in individual to serve in the combined operating experience in the senior which human error, among other factors- Sedor Opmtor/ Smit Technid contnbuted to the consequences of the Advisor (SO/STA) role if thatindividual operator position. accioem, we asus o. acausmk.

Under the second alternative, the m proposed amendment would apply to requ!rements for reactor operators has uds uginMdag. eisu a engbunng bachelm t @M persons who have supervisory been a major concern of the Nuclear h responsibt?ies, such as shift Regulatory Commission (NRC). In July E Y'ical.pece, e .or p ona Mulonal 2 permita supervisors or senior managers. It would 1979,'TMI-21Assons barned Task c ntinuation of the separate STA who require that they have enhanced Force Status Report and Short. Term r tates with the shift and holds a educational credentials and experience Recommendations,"(NUREG-0578)' bachelor s degme or equivalent and over that which is normally required for made specific recommendations for a meets the enteria as stated in, senior reactor operators. ne proposed Shift Technical Advisor (STA) to Clarificabon of TMl Action Plan amendment would upgrade the provide engineering and accident Requimments. (NUREG-c737).ne operating, engineering, and accident assessment experuse during other than Comndnion also enemages the shift managernent expertise provided on shift normal operating conditions.On supervisor to serve in the dual-role by combining engineeriq expertise and October 30,1979, the NRC notified all position. and the S operating experience in tne shift operating nuclear powerlicensees of the role in shift activin,TA to take an active es.

supervisor position, short. term STA requirements,i.e., that STAS should be on shift by January On May 30,1986, the NRC published The Commission believes that an advance notice of proposed adoption of either of the alternatives, for 1980, and that they should be fully trained by January 1981. In November rulemaking (ANPRM) ($1 fit 19561). The senior operators or shift supervisors, would further ensure the protection of 1980," Clarification of TMI Action Plan purpose of the ANPRM was to extend I the health and safety of the public by Requirements." (NUREG.4737), the cunent level of engineering {

enhancing the capabdity 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 position,it identiBed the STA as a Engineering Expertise on Shift (50 FR and restore the reactor to a safe and stable condition. temporary position pending a 43621) and to ensum that senior Commission decision regardinglong operators have operating experience on catts:Comroent period expires range upgrading of reactor operator and a commercial nuclear reactor operating February 27.1989. Comments received senior operator capabilities, at greater than twenty percent power, after this date will be considered if it is e.g.," hot" operating experience (Generic practical to do so, but the Commission is The qualifications of operators we-e able to assure consideration only for also addressed by the 1979," Lessons htter 84-16).De ANPRM was the i barned Task Force," (NUREG-4585), result of a Commission decision to l comments received on or before this the 1980 Rogovin report,"nree Mile censider an amendment to its i date. regulations (Parts 50 and 55) and to Island: A Report to the Commissioners mas: Mail comments to:%e and to the Public"(NUREC/CR-1240), obtain comments on the contemplated Secretary of the Commissloa. U.S. action to upgrade the levels of operating, and the 1982," Report of the Peer Nuclear Regulatory Commission, engineering, and accident management Advisory Panel and the Nuclear Washington, DC 20555, Attention: expertise on shift.

Regulatory Commission on Operator Docketing and Service Branch. I Qualifications," (SECY SM62).' In addition to describing the proposed '

Deliver comments to: One White Flint Although de 1982 mport recommended rule in general, the ANPRM presented a North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, against imposition of a degme list of twenty questions concerning Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 nguimment, the consensus among these various aspects andimpilcations of the p.m. Comments may also be delivered to reports was that greater technical and proposed rule. Two hundred letters were the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L academic knowledge among shift received in response to the ANPRM. A Street, Lower hvel, NW., Washington, pusonnel would be beneficial DC between 7:30 s.nt and (15 p.m.

op"a summary and analysis of the comments to the sa ety of nuclear pown plants. are included in SECY-47-101 dated Examine comments received, the On October 28,1985, the NRC environmental assessment and Ending April 16,1987.The NRC hae reviewed in published in the Federal Register (50 FR detail, all the comments made on the of no significant impact, and the 43621) a anal pobey statement on ANPRM as well as comments received regulatory analysic at the NRC Public ensneering expertise on shift to allow Document Room 2120 L Street, lower since that time. In general, the commenters were opposed to a degree hvel, NW., Washington. DC.

Obtain single copies of the requirement for senior cperators.ne

' environmental assessment and finding P"g' copies of etl NURzcs refmnced m.y i=,' Q M f $ '," y' g

proposed amendments in this notice reflect in detail many of the comments of no significant impact and the us covernment Pnnhns OfLce. P.O. Bom pos:.

weihwon.Dc axnwoat copies mey also be and responses to the que:tions posed.

regulatory analysis from M.R.

Fleishman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory purchased from the National Technical tnformat on Apart from the detailed comments on Port Research, Washington, DC 20555, y@sN$*[V rca

.'A enilable for inspection or copying for a fee to the the proposed contents of the rule, a number of general comments were telephone (301) 492-3794.

NRC Pubhc Document Room, ruo L Street tower provided regarding the possible adverse FOR FURTHER INFORidaT)0N CONTACT:  !""L NW, washinston. oc. effeets of requiring degreee for senior M R. Fleishman, Office of Nuclear $

perators.The public comments as well Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear c nI. c Ed . d 1n 'fe'"r' ."a*.$*st eti those ratsed daring NRC staff teview.

Regulatory Commission Weshington, the NRC Pubhc Document Room at 2120 L Street, tower LanL NW. Wuhincon DC. can be categorized ae follows:

DC 20555, telephone (301) 49b3794, l

1 l

- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ -_a

1 l'edital Register / Vol. 53, No. 250 / Thursday. December 29, 1988 / Proposed Rults

'8{718

1. The proposed n,1c ss nni neu:se Concurrent Policy Statement 2 Experience is more unportant trwn a respor.d to complex transients and Tlie Comniission will publah accidents and thereby further ensure the 3- pro se rule wu tm o rietetwe concurrently with the fmal rule a policy protecteun of the health and safety of the impact on safety. ,, tj statement w hich encouruges nuclear public.  ;

/ 4.1 ne proposed rule r,en!t m a p ester oper6tur turnmer ratef

• Power plant beensees, working with the nuclear industry, to:

The policy statement on engmeenng

$,Xperta,se,on e,hift pubbshed in the l

5. The proposed rule wiU basically bioch

, (

1. implement personnel puhcies that - e nunucsu aim g the career path of reactor operators. resulting emphastre the opportumties for bcensed FR 43621) provided an in,tenm method of in iower morale. operators to assume positions ofincreased achieving more engmeenng capability 6 Thers will be less overall expenance on management responsibibty; on shift. Essentially, with Altemative 1 shift due to the pronaotion of sos into 2. Develop programs that would enable the NRC is moving from interim scnagement positions. currently beensed seruor operators. reactor requirements which provide engineering The Advisory Committee on Reactor operators and shift supervisors to obtain capability for accident conditions (the Safeguarda (ACRS) also considered the co e degren; and STA). to requiring engineering preposed requirement and discussed it nu leIpoYe ot$ainuf g }* C8pabihty, and nuclear power plant et several meetinas in 1986 and 1967. eapenence through arrangements with the perating experience,in the same The ACRS strongly supported the acadernic secto, individual (the SO).

concept of baving engmeeting expertise in Alternative 1. the p: ' posed en eoch shift. However they did not Discuulon amendment would reques each egree that requiring a degree for senior The NRC is concerned that operator applicant for a senior operator (50) cperators was the best approach though quahfications to deal with accidents license to operate a nuclear reactor, they agreed that specific technical beyond design basis conditions warrant after le years following the effective knowledge abould be required. They improvement. Operstor training date of the rule), to have a bachelor's believed that. because of the concern programs and related emergency degree in engineering. engineering about advarse effects raised by many operating procedwes generally do not technology, or the physical sciences knowledgeable individuals. the consider accident conditions beyond from an accredited university er colleFe.

proposed rule should be reconsidered. Inadequate core coobng. %ere is a Applicants with other bachelor's The Commission has carefully general consensus that we!! qualified degrees from an accredited brt tution.

i considered the numerous comments operators can substantially mitigste the or from a foreign college or ur.iversity, I received on the ANPRM as well as the effects of severe accidents.The industry would be considered on a casmby case recommendations,of the ACRS.During Degraded Core Rulemaking Program basis if the utility (licensee) certnes its deliberations subseq ient to the (IDCOR) industry group. for example, that the applicant has demonstuted ANPRM. the Commission considered the has developed arguments that operators engineering expertise and high po,tential following three options regardmg could substantially reduce the risk for the SO positrp De Commismon irnproving engineering expert 3e on shift: posed by these conditions.The NRC is does not want to prevent individuele considering the need for more extensive with excellent engineering experieace,

s. Procad with the conternplated des w but with nontechnical degrees, from rub and concurrent pobey statement as severe accident training and emergency operating procedures as well as becoming sos; however, degree fn t$elong ter in a les o or enginuring qualifications fw seniw eq&alency wiH no longer be accepted.

Operstars on shift who have bachelor's operators. An accredited university or coDege la degren. There are numerous approaches that defined as an educational institution in j may be taken regarding the issue of the United States which has been

2. Propose a rule to require a degreed individual on shift similar to e Senior improved operator capabilities: the approved by a regional accreditmg Manager, as described in SECY-46-206. Commission has decided to request body,

• Proposed Rulemaking Concoming comments on two approaches.The The proposed amendment would Requirements for Senior Managers ~ proposed amendments would only affect apply to applicants for a SO to operate e

3. Arneod the Policy Statement on persons assoc;sted with nuclear power nuclear power reactor, People who held Er.gineering Expertise on Shift (50 TR 4E 1) resctors. They would not affect persons 50 licenses on [4 years following the ta exphcitly encourage hcensecs to develop progeems leadmg to degrees. to ublae the essociated with non. power nuclear effective date of the rulej would be mb ned /S A opbon and to phase out reactors such as research and test exempt ficm the degree requirement.

reactors. Each alternative approach will Thus, those persons who hold a senior be considered in parallel. Each a pproach operator license on (4 years following The Commission has decided to is discussed separately.Much of the the effective date of the rule). would be proposed two alternative amendn'ents discussion of Alternative 2 duplicates "gra ndfathered" (i.e., a lifetime i for consideration and public comment that of Alternative 1 so that each may be exemption) by the proposed i with the understanding that, following viewed on its own merits. amendment. Even if they were tolose the public comment period, only one alternalise would be selected for final Alternative J-Requirementsfor Sem.or their SOlicense in the future e g. due to a change in jobs ohlants, they could

/ .

I promulgation. The alternatives proposed Opuotus otill rcapply for a new SO license l are similar to Options 1 and 2 but with The purpose of this proposed viithout satisfying the degree significant differences based on alternative is to upgrade the operating, rcQuirernent. It is recognized that )i comments and further considerations by engineering, and accident management

• grandfathering" current sos could l l the Commission following the ANpRM. expertise provided on shift by result in sos without degrees for an l Although comments received on the combining both engineering expertise extended period of time. Since the  !

ANpRM were generally unfavorable, the and operating experience in the senior Commission's intent is to maintain at

}

Commission believes that it would be operstor function.The NRC believes this least the same degree of engineering beneficial to ha ve a full public airing of approach will enhance the cepability of expertise on shift as currently exists, the j vizws on these)f proposals. the operating staff to analyze and STA policy described under options 1 l Me i

)

L 1

Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursdry, December 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 32729 and 2 of the October 28,1985 policy of" hot" and at least 3 years tnta! on educational criteria. would have to operating expenence fer each applicant be revised to reflect this amendment.

statement (50 FR 43621) would continue in effect. Thus, if two "g%ndfathered" for a SO heense. A RO heense is ne concunent polic statement is sos are used on shift lthe facih*y required in order to get " hot" contrni intended to encourage beensees licensee would be required to have a room operating expenence: thus, the (utihties) and the nuclear industry to separate individust on shih who has the proposed amendment expands the provide mcentives and management b & n mauwetsn and expe ience ement NRC nolicy, described in oooortunities for sos as well na en desenbed in NUREG-0737. If one of the Regulatory Guide 1.8, Revision 2, deted irsprove the engineerma capabihties of sos has a degree and one is April 1987, " Qualification and Trainin8 the on shift crew.he SO with a d

" 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 personnelruource sos have degrees. the policy statement sufficient operating experience, for the utility, one who combines shift would no longer be needed. Regulatory Guide 1.A. in position C.1.e., operational management experience The concurrent pobey statement will allows an applicant for e So licen** with the potential for encourage previously bcensed sos to with a degree to have only 2 years of management responsibsterty. De pobey obtain degrees. In the past the NRC has responsible power tant experience. statement, among other things will accepted " equivalents" to the bachelor's nona of which nee a to be as a reactor encourage licensees to provide that deg ce for a separate STA.The cperator. Thns, Regulatory Guide 1.8 career path' equivalents were based upon will be revised if the proposed en ni n es es!

specialized utility training or other work amendment is adopted. The proposed "9"I#I"3 8 experiences. For the proposed amendment would require the SO 3 al i havm. degree g SO: who havewill contribute to t amendment, however, equivalency applicant with a degree to serve as a RO perational experience, technical and would not be acceptable to the NRC in at greater than 20 percent power for at academic knowledge. and educational lieu of a degne. Because the least 1 year. This does not mean that the credentials that should improve their Commission is not in a posit 2on to reactor must be at power 100 percent of performance as operators and possibly evaluate the academic equivalency of the time during the year, however, the 1 open caner paths from which Gey may utihty training. It encourages utilities to year time period should not include have been excluded in the past The SO:

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 refuehng (i.e, periods better to off normalincidents. Whue course credit for such equivalency based that exceed 6 weeks duration). Special there will be incnased tralmns to cover upon work experience or speciabzed provisions are proposed in order to accident conditions, training alone la not trMning. Due the concurrent policy accommodate those applicants from sufficient. It is impossible to cover every statement will encourage efforts to have facilities that an unable to operate eventuality during training. De the training accepted by the colleges for above twenty percent power due either operators must have sufficient partial credit toward fulfilhng the to (a) the facilities not having completed understanding of basic engineering requirernents of an scendited degree. their initial startup program and being pnneiples, and detailed knowledge of The degree requirement would not licensed to run at power, or (b) the nuclear design and operation to apply to licensed reactor operators facilities being in an extended shutdown appropriately respond to situations that (ROs). However, the concurrent policy mode. In the case of the facilities not yet have not been previously covered in statement will encourage ROs to obtain licensed to run at power, alternative training sessions. In addition, sos with degrees so that they can progress to the approaches to meet the twenty percent power requirement may be approved by degnes will have gnater qw wity for _

SO position and to other utihty professional growth since they will ha ve positions. The Commission believes a the Commission. In the case of facdities the qualifications needed to advance to degree requirement for sos on shift, in exten.!ed shutdown, the Commission managerial positions. With the chance along with the concurrent policy may precess the application and for personal growth should come greater statement, will not only enhance public adraini4ter the written and operating job satisfaction. The validity of these health and safety,but wdi also enhance tests but would deferissuance of the beliefs has been reenforced by the promotion opp 2rtunities for sos. senior operating license untd the twenty experiences of licensed operators The cutoff date of four years following percent power requirement is fulfi!]ed. participating in an ongoing utility the effective date of the rule for This proposed requirement for a SO apphcation for a SO license by applicant with a degree also imphes that sponsored program similar to what is being proposed herein. The Commission individuals who do not have degrees is an applicant for a RO license with a chosen for three reasons. First,it will degree must only have 2 years of related also believes that migration of sos nuclear power plant experience.This is upward into plant management wil!

allow operators now in training contribute to improved plant safety,

• suffi:ient time and notice to complete a a change to the guidance in RcEulatory der ce before applicatics.Second.it Guide 1.8 which endorses the American Ahernotive 2-Require,nents for should not cause undue hardship on National Standard. ANS!/ANS-3.1-1981, gyp,fyj,of, cperators who are now in the process of " Selection. Qualification and Training of The purpose of this proposed prepanng and training for the ser'iot Perannel for Nuclear Power Plants."

alternative is to upg ade the operating.

operator hcense, and third. licensect The st> ndard indicates that a RO applirant must have a minimum of 3 engineering. and accident management have been encouraged by the policy expertise provided on shift by St.tement on Engineering Expertise on yea * . of power plant experience of whs n at least 1 year shall be naclear combining both engineering expertise S!.ift (Option 1) to move toward a dual. and operating experience in the shift rr le SO/STA position. Furthermore, power experience.lf the proposed superSisor or senior manger function these operators who are licensed as SO: amendment is adopted,it wouhl supersede the guidance in Regulatory described in i 50.54(mJ(2)(ii) of the en the cutoff date would be regulations. The NRC believes t'Us wdl "grandfa thered." GUde 1.8 and necessitate iis revision in accord with the amendment. Also, enhance the capabihty of the operatir's in Alternative 1, the proposed amendment would also require one year position C.1.d of Re;;ulatory Cuide 1 s. stcff to analyze and respond to ccmplex

' 52'720 Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 250 / hreday. December 29. less / Proposed Rules transients and accidenta and thereby under options 1 and 2 in the October 2a. operating experience for each shift further ensure the protection of the 1965 policy statement (50 FR 43621) supervisor or senior manager,he health and safety of the public. would be eliminated since the shift proposed amendment changes the supervisor would be providing the current NRC policy, duenbod in The policy statement on engineering engineering expertise on shift and there Re latory Guide ts. Revision 1 dated expertise on shift published in the Federal Register on October 28.1985 (50 would be no need for the STA. 1987. " Qualification and Training in the past the NRC has acceptml o Personnel for Nuclear power plants."

FR 436:1) provided an interim method of acleing scrs engineeMg eepability " equivalents" to the bachelor's degee Regulatory Guide 1.8, in position C.1.d.,

on shift. EssentiaDy.with Alternative 2. for a separate STA.The equivalents states that a shift supervisor only needs the NRC is moving from intens were based upon specialized utility a high school diploma. Thus. Regulatory requirements which provide engineering training or other work experiences. For Guide 1.8 wiu be revind,if the proposed the proposed amendment, however, amendment is adopted, to reflect the capability for accident conditions [the STA), to requiring engineering equivalency would not be acceptable to new educationalcredentials and the NRC in lieu of one of the educational experience required to becoine a shift capab;11ty, and nuclear power plant credentials. Because the Commission is supervisor (i.e 8 years experience with operating experience,in the shift not in a position to evaluate the 1 year as a RO).The proposed supervisor or senior manager.

in Alternative 2. the proposed academic equivalency of utility training, amendment would require the shift it encouropes utilities to seek out supervisor to serve as a RO at greater amendment would revise i 50.54, academic tratitutions who will evaluate than 20 percent power for at least 1 Conditions oflicenses. regarding the the trairung programs and grant course year.This does not aman that the requirements for a shift supervisor or reactor must be at power 100 percent of senior manager. It makes a distinction credit for such equivalency based upon work experience or specialized training. the time during the yeen however, the 1 between power plant sites with one year time period should not include l Thus. the concurrent policy statement control room and those with two or will encourage efforts to have the periods of significant downtime for {

more control rooms.Re intent of the training accepted by the coHeges for maintenance or refueling (i.e.. periods proposed amendment is to ensure that that exceed 6 weeks duration). Special there is a separete shift supervisor for partial credit toward fulfilling the educational requirements for the shift provisions are proposed in order to each control room who is responsible supervisors. accommodate shift supervisors from for overall operstion of allfueled unite facilities that are unable to operate operated by the control room at au times The educationalcredential there is fuelin any of the units.The requirement would not apply to licensed above twenty percent power due to the l reactor operators (ROs) or senior facilities not having completed their Commission may permit exemptions to initial startup program and being the one supervisor per control room operators (sos). %e concurrent polley licensed to run at power.For such amendment. on a case.by. case basis, for statement will encourage all ROs and sos to obtain the enhanced educational facilities, altemanve approaches to meet those situations where controlrooms the twenty percent power requirement may be close to each other.The credentials so that they can progress to the shift supervisor position and to other may be approved by the Commission.

proposed amendment would require De concurrent policy statement is each shift supervisor after l4 years utility positions.The Commission lieves that the educational intended to encourage licensees following the effective date of the rule], (utilities) and the nuclear industry to to have one or more of the foDowing require t for shift supervisors, along with th rrent policy statement, will provide incentives and management enhanced educational credentials: A not ont enhance public health and opportunities for shift supervisors as bachelor's degree from a program safety, ut will also provide a route for well as to improve the engineering accredited by the Accreditation Board capabilities of the on shift crew.ne for Engineering and Technology (ABET); promoting ROs and sos. By restricting shift supervisor with enhanced a professional engineer license issued the requirement to shift supervisors, the Commission believes that the normal educational credentials and shift by a state government; or, a bacbelor's operating experience can become a degree and an Engineer.in. Training progression from RO to SO can be retained for those ROs and sos who do valuable personnel resource for the (EIT) certificate that indicates one has not wish to obtain the enhanced utility, one who combines shift passed an examination administered by operational management experience a state or other recognized authority, educational credentials and who have with the potential for greater This requirement wiD ensure a minimum no desire to enter management. management responsibility. ne policy les el of engineering expertise for each The date of four years following the effective date of the rule for statement. among other things, wiu i shifi supervisor, The bachelor's degree encourage licensees to provide that I with the EIT would not necessarily have irnplementation of the educational credentials requirement for shift career path; both for shifs supervisors to be in a technical discipline.provided supervis >rs is chosen for two reasons. and o;her cperating personnel who the person meets the state education obta:n enhanced educational First,it will aHow shift supervisors and experience criteria for credentials.

sufficient time and notice to complete a ed Jnistration of the EIT.The NRC The Commission believes that recept.izes that in some statesit may not degree. Second. It'should not cause undue hardship on shift supervisors requiring enhanced educational be possible to be registered as a credentials wiu contribate to the goal of since licensees have been encouraged '

professional engineer or receive an EIT having shift supervisors who have cert;ficate without having received by the Policy Statement on Engineering  !

either a bachelor's degree from an ABET Expertise on Shift (Option 1) to move operational experience, and technical toward a dual. role SO/STA position; and academic knowledge. that should eceredited program or a bachelor's which has frequently been assumed by improve their performance as -

deFree in a technical discipline.For inda duals in those states, the NRC is the shift supervisor. supervisors and possibly open career in Alternative 2. the proposed paths from which they may have been considering other options available for 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;

l

{

1 Fedir:1 Register / Vcl. 53. No. 250 / Thursday. Decernber 2s.1968 / Proposed Rules 52721 l

- --. \

]

better to off normalincidents.While and throughout the utibty with a safety, others were discussed and  !

there will be increased training to cover esultant improvement in plant safety. dropped because no basis was found to f accident conditions trauung alone is not initada med support them.The proposal for dewd I saf3cient. It is impossible to cover every operators was an example of the latter.

es er.tuality during training The shift In view of the unusual nature of this it is unfortunate that this leeue supervisors must have sufficient notice of proposed rulernaking. in which continues to surface. As reflected in the l undentanding of basic engineering two alternatives are proposed. the earlier public comments on this issue i prmeiples, and detailed knowledge of Commission specifically encourages the mere potential for imposition of this l nuclear design and operation to comments regarding comparison of the requirement is having a negative impset appropriately respond to situations that alternauves. Comments are particularly on operator morale. I continue to bebeve have not been previously covered in solicited in regard to: a requirement for degreed senior training sessions. In addition, shift 1. Which attemative is preferable assumir4 oPerstors is ill advised. Not only is there supervisors with enhanced educational one will be selected? no dernonstrated safety benefit from thrs credentials will have greater opportunity 2. what are the potentialimpacts of each of action but there is a significant potential ,

for professional growth since tney wiu the attematives on licensee stamngt for negative safety implications. To once i have the qualificauona aceded to 3 Regarding implementation of the sgain publish this proposal will only advance to manageriai positions.The attematives. would there be a more continue the riegative impact this israe te tran n od for each Commission also believes that migration gro is having on operator morale.

4 Alternative I provid$s I three dif!srent In 1981, the Commission formed a 8ement ont b e o ved methods for demonstrating techhical peer review panel to consider I overat! plant safety. expertise with educational credentials. specifically teactor opentor  !

Cocclusion Would some other method be desirable for qualifications including whether a BS

• ' l ative level degree should be required for Although the Commission believes 'ho'Edr>

y o edg 8eni f perators. This peer nyiew panel there is a net benefit of the proposed appropriate engmee fundamentals for amendments in enhancing pubbe bealth people who may be Ngible to take the Err c neluded (ref. SECY-82-162) that not only was there no evidence that a and safety, it acknowledges that this examination?

5. Should a requirement be imposed formal degree was necessary for job judgment is based on a qualitative performance but that " imposition of requinns all semor operators to pass an ,

assessment of the relative contributions Engneenna in Training (EIT) or equivalent such a requirement, without evidetce I of vanous lactors, some with potential axanunati n es a measure of basic technical that the requirement is needed to sitive impacts and others with expertise in addition to, or instead of the two perform the job,is likely to result in a tential negatfve impacts. The most l proposals in this notice? If such a decrement in m eraD performance and i sNi 'ficant$ositive factoris thepability n Y e'of ar the

$ Eqshift N b 'a* th s i in .: Mic safety"(smphasis e anced be onal added). In spite of numemus studies l operating staff to effectively manage credentials for shift supervisors? conducted by the staff since 1982, there accidents. Increased operstmg 6. Independent of a degree requirement,is there a need for the experience requirements is still no evidence that a BS degree is experience of plant management is also Deeded to perform the job of senior an anticipated longer term benefit. to be increased for the shift supemsw position? Are the proposed requirements operator. In fact, in the recent report However, there are possible called for in the two attematives sufLeient? entitled "Humaa Factors Research and disadvantages. For Alternative 1. they Nuclear Safety", the National Research include (1) the potential for lower Additional Views of Commissioner Cound Panel on Human Factors morale among reactor operators without Roberts Research Needs in Nuclear Regulatory degrees whose natural career path.

In this proposed rulemaking the Research recommended research in this promotion to the SO level,is blocked. area prior to making a degree j and (2) the potential reduction of overall Commission is considering two alternatives regarding educat2onal mandatory. The panel considered this l

{ operating experience on shift as sos research a high priority as "(s)n 1

with degrees : nose to other work. For requirements for operating personnel. ,

Alternative 2. the disadvantages include The first alternative, which is an old injudicious regulation could lead to {

I problems with both morale and proposal, would impose a degree {

j the potential for lower morale among recruiting without necessarily improving senior operators without degrees whose requirement in senior operators. The l

safety."

{ promotion to the shift supervisor levelis second attemative would require enhanced educational credentials for Although I agree that it is valuable to b!acked. have personnel with operating Upon consideration of these and other supervisory personnel. Although I have (

f actors, such as those identified ty the not reached a judgment on the need for experience in utility management. it is l public comment process on the ANPRM. supervisory personnel to have enhanced inappropriate to attempt to accomphsh the Cornmission concludes, at this time. educational credentials,I am supporting this objective by so severely penalirir:g I

that the overall effect of the proposed the publishing of the second alternative reactor operators and senior operators I a nendments would be beneficialand in order to obtain the benefit of the do not believe that one obtains the w ould result in greater plant 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 I truproved quahry of the operational so. obtaining a degree.Those individuals 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.

unique operational problems associated proposals dealing with the size. There are currently 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. This should provide a sufficient pool of increasing the educationallevelof the Several of these proposals were adopted individuals 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.

52722 Fed:ral Ref;ister / Vol. 53, No. 250 / Thursday, D;cember 29. 1988 / Proposed Rules I

Reduction Act of 1980 (+4 U.S.C. 3501 et compared to larger organizations in the same I beheve that the Commission and the busmesa commumty, industry have put in place a number of seg ). Existing requirements were

2. How the proposed regulations could be programs which have upgraded and will approved by the Office of Management cor.tinue to upgrade the qualifications of and Budget approval nurnbers 3150- mo&fied to take into account their &ffenna needs or capebiht es.

reactor operstors. In addition, the 0011,3150-0018, and 3150 4090 3. The benefits that would scerue, or h incter sed recognition of the importance Regulate Analysis detnments that would be evoided. if m of well qu hfied oper:ters will continue to pay dividends in the future. A number The Commission has prepared a draft ,Q, [*[MQo& Sed as of utihties 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 mo&fied. would more closely equits s educa tion. I fully support and encourage costs and benefits of the alternatives impact of NRC regula uons or cruta more these initiatives.These programs will considered by the Commission.The equi ecceu to the t,enefita of p.d.,1 i draft regulatory analysis is available for programs as opposed to providing special  !

aUow those with abihty and desire to advantages to any inividuais or groups.

progress up the management chain.1 am inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document RooJ1. 21201, 8. How the proposed regulations, as conf; dent that these initiatives will m &fied. would still adequately protect the I enhance the safe operation of our Street. Lower level. NW., Washington, pubbe health and safety.

nuclear power plants. However, one can DC. Single copies of the analysis may be not expect immediate results.Dese obtained from M. R. Fleishman. Office of ne comments should be sent to b Nuclear } egulatory Research. Secretary of the Commission. U.S.

initiatives take time to show Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington. DC 20555, telephone (301) improvements. Washington. DC 20555, Attentioru When commenting on Alternative 2 of 492 4 794.

The Commission requests public Docketing and Service Branch.

the proposed rulemaking I will be comment on the draft analysts.

particularly interested in comments Backfit Analysis concerning the viability of this proposal. Comments on the draft analysis may be To be viable, this proposal must aUow submitted to the NRC as indicated under As required by to CFR 50.109, the the ADDRESSES headmg. Cocunission has completed a backfit for the orderly progression of operating personnel through the ranks from Regulatory Flexibility Certification analysis for the proposed rule. ne Commission has determined, based on auxiliary operator to shift supervisor so As required by the Regulatory as to ensure experienced personnel on this analysis, that backfitting to comPI Flexibility Act of 1900,5 U.S.C. 605(b)- with & requiremts of tMs ud shift. Specifically, I would like to know, from the perspective of current the Commission certifies that this rule,if rule will provide a substantia ese promulgated, will not have a significant operating personnel, bow accessible are in protection ABET accredited engineering programs?

economic impact upon a substantial or the commontobublic fense and health and security at safety a

number of small entities. This proposed cost which is justified by the substantial If the PE or EIT eptions are selected.

which states allow registration and/or rule affects only the licensing and increase.%e backfit analysis on which ration of nuclear power plants. it this determination is based reads as classification as an EIT without an ofso affects individuals bcensed asgegin,,;

a ABET accredited degree? In hght of the fact that states require work experience operators at these plants.%e . ment e, objectives companies that own these plants and to be registered as a pE and, with a non. the individual plant employees licensed d .theproposedbo fi /s designadio accredited engineerin6 or related degree, to operate them do not fall within the often require work experience to be

] The objective of the proposed rule is classified as an EIT, will state scope of the definition of"smalj entities" set forth in the Regulatory to upgrade the operating, engineering.

registration boards grant credit for Flexibility Act or the Small Business and accident management expertise operating experience as " acceptable Size Standards set out in regulations provided on shift by combining both professional experience . . . of a grade issued by the Small Business engin9ering expertise and operating and character indicating 6st the Administration in 13 CFR Part 121. Since expenence in the senior operator or shift applicant may be competent to practice supervisor functions.

thesp companies are dominant in their engineering"7 If credit is granted for service areas, this proposed rule does 2. Generaldescription of the activity operating experience. does this not fall within the purview of the Act. that would be requiredby the //censee experience have to be acquired after However,because there may be now or opphcantin order to complete the

,,e,;yg,g ,g ,g7,,y or in the future small entities which will backfit.

I will also be interested in comments provide licensed operators to nuclear ne proposed rule, under Alternative In response to Questions 4. 5 and 6 of power plants on a contractual basis, the 1 would require each applicant for s the Invitation to Comment. NRC is specifically seeking comment as senior operator (SO) license to operate a Environmental 1mpact-Categon, cal to how the regulations will affect them nuclear power reactor, after [4 years Exclusion and how the regulations may be tiered following the effective date of the rule],

or otherwise modified to impose less to have a bachelor's degree in The NRC has determined that this engineering. engineering technology, or proposed regu!stion is the type of action stringent requirements on them while the physical sciences from an accredited described in categorical exclusion 10 still adequately protecting the public health and safety. Those small entities university or college. Applicants with

! CFR SL22(c)(1). Therefore. neither an which offer comments on how the other bachelor's degrees from an environmental impact statement nor an accredited institution, or from a foreign regulations could be modified to take environmental assessment has been into account the differing needs of small college or university, would be prepared for this proposed regulation. entities should specifically discuss the considered on a case.by-case basis if Paperwork Reduct,on i Act Statement foHowing items: the utility (licensee) certifies that the applicant has demonstrated engineering his proposed rule does not contain a 1.The site of their business and how the proposed regulations would result in a expertise and high potential for the SO new or amended information collection position. The Commission doce not want requirement subject to the Paperwork sign Gcant economic burden upon them as

1

. Fed:ral Register / Vcl. 53. No. 250 / Thursday. December 29. 1988 / Proposed Rules 52723 l

i '

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 anderstandmg of basic engineenng 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 situauona 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 educa'ional institution in the Umted each other. Each shift supervisor, af ter training sessions. In addition. sos with States which has been approved by e [4 years foUowing 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 needed to advance to people who hold SO licenses on (4 years Accreditation Board of Engineen'ng and managerial positions. The Commission foUowing the effective date of the rule] Technology (ABET); a professional believes that there will also be an would be exempt from the degree engineer bcense issued by a state improvement in plant safety as sos or requirement. Those persons who hold a government; or, a bachelor's degree and shift superdsors migrate upward into senior operator license on [4 years an Engineer in Tralning (ETT) certificate plant management although this following the effective date of the rule) that indicates one h,as 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 overall operating experience on shift as amendment would not apply to SO requirement will ensure a minimum sos with degrees move to other work.

applicants for non-power nuclear level of engineering expertise for each .

shift supervisor. The bachelor's degree 4. Potentio/impoet on audiological reactors such as research and test **Posure offocility employees.

reactors. IJeensed reactor operator with the EIT would not necessarily have (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 enteria 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. "ho." 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 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 the cost Alternative 1 would only apply to power power. of construction de/oy.

rea ctor licensees indirectly. There 3. Potentic/ change in the risk to the One of the questions posed in the May would be no modification of or addition Public from the occidentoloff. site 30.1986 ANpRM. relative to Altemative" to the organization,i.e. administrative rc/cose ofrodioactive matenal. 1, concerned what the implementation and functional structure. required to It is not feasible to quantitatively and operation costs of the proposed operate a nuclear power reactor as a evaluate the change in risk to the public amendment would be to the utilities.

result of this proposed amendment as a result of the proposed rule. That is. The cost estimates received ranged from the effect of the SO or shift supervisor because: negligible to prohibitive. Various

1. the persen to whom the sos report [ ,0'ecident p d th arge e scenarios for achieving the desired would not change; staffing level of sos with degrees were

' f

2. the number of Sos per shift would not {0babilI[Y,8"d g ,resu ofrlqu$'ng ther assumed. These varied from hiring the 50 to have a bachelor's degree or individuals with degrees and passms s'.$e' totsi number of operators per shift them through the normal utihty traimng wuld not change; the shift supervisor to have enhanced programs to taking ROs and sendmg

4. the eramina requirements, written educational credentials is not known.

examinations and operating tests for s SO 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

6. the tasks performed by a $O would not ROs. A utility could also implement an educational credentials for shift change. supervisors will contribute to the goal of onsile college degree program for its However, the power reactor licensees having sos or shift supervisors who operators. for e . ample a program would have to get new sos from a group have operational experience and currently being run for an operating of individuals who already have technical and academic knowledge that plant costs $250.000 per year to educate appropriate degrees or else provide the should improve their performance as 60 peopic. The range of costs of such an educational opportunity for their own operators and possibly open career onsite program are estimated to vary i paths from which they rnay have been from $250.000 to $480.000 per year. The j employees to obtain a degree, The proposed rule, under Alternative excluded in the past. The sos with cost to the utihties of Alternative 2 i

2. would require a separate shift degrees or shift supervisors with would be less since there would be I supervisor for each control room who is enhanced educational credentials fewer shift supervisors to train. j responsible for overall operation of all should be able to respond better to off it is clear that there are numerous j fueled units operated by the control normal incidents. While there will be methods that can be used to implement j room at all times there is fuelin any of increased training to cover accident the proposed rule with an extreme range j the units. The requirement would only conditions. training alone is not of costs depending on the method l apply to pcwer reactor licensees:it sufficient, it is impossible to cover 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 l

o

• 52724 " Fedaeal Register / Vcl 63. No. 250 / Thuredsy. December 29, 1988 / Proposed Rulis account the vertaus cost and persoonal s. De potentialimpoet of differences under sec. lete. es Stat. sea, se amended g considerations. In facility type, design or age on the UAC. saatto)l.

e. Thepoerntialsafetyimpact of relevancy andprocticality of the 2. La i 65.4, a new definitions added changes in plant or operotsonal proposed bocWit. in alphabetical order to read as foUows'-

opeWexity, including the efect on other ne proposed rule only applies to SO applicants for operation of a nuclear Ies.4 Deensesne, p.vosed and existing regulosory * * * *

• requirements. power reactor or to shift supervisors. it There would be no changes in the does not apply to 80 applicants or shift " Accredited university or college" plant or operatior.al complexity and - supervisors for non-power nuclear means an educationalinatttution in the bence, no potential safety impact related reactors such as research and test United States which has been approved to them. However. there would be as reactors. by a regional accrediting body, effect on the guidance provided in ne facility type, design or age abould * * * *

• Regulatory Guide 1A Relative to have no relevancy to the impact or a. In I as.*L a new para Alternative 1. the guidance la practicality of the proposed backfit. For added to read as follows: graph (e)la Regulatory Guide 1.s allows an Alternative 1. the degree to which each applicant for a SO license with a degree utility licensee has already implemented I as.B1 New to appy. l to have only 2 years of responsible an educationalprogram would be most power plant experience, none of which important.%ose facilities which have (e) Each applicant for a senior

.- needs to be as a reactor operator.nis implemented 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). must have amendment would require a SO not. For Altemative 2. the number of a bachelor's degree in engineering.

applicant with a degne to serve as a RO recctors 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 couege. 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 2 year shall s. Whether theproposed backfit is university, will be considered on a case.

be nuclear power experience.nia interim orfinoland,i/ interim. she by<ase basis if the reactor plant would have to be revised sinceitis justification for iaposity the proposed limasee certifies that the applicant has inconsistent with the proposed beckfit on s;:!n& stim basis. cetnenstrated eng!aeering expertise and amendment which implies that an The proposed rule, when made high potential for .he a senior operstor applicant for a RO license with a desme effective, would be in final form and not position. In addition, except as noted la toust 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 ,

Alternative 1-Requirements for Sanlo' effective date of the rule). sach position C.1.d of the Regulatory Guide would have to be revised to indicate Operators applicant for a senior operator license that a bachelor's degree is the minimam 1.lat of Subjects in la CFR Part as must have at least three years of i educational requirement for a SO .

Manpower training programs. Nuclear ohrating p of which experience at aperiam one year's a nuclear power candidate rather than a high school power plants and reactors, penalty, must be as a licensed control roem

, diploma. Relative to Alternative 2. Reporting and recordkeeping 4

current guidance in Regulatory Gelde operator for a nuclear power reactor )

nqu!mments. operating at greater than twenty percent 1 1.8. Revision 2. April 1987, For the reasons set out in the power. Atleast six months of the  !

"forQualification and Training of personnel preamble and under the authority nuclear Nuclear Power plants." states that a of the power plant experience must be l shift supervisor only needs a high school Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amer'ded, at the plant for which the applicant I the Energy Reorganization Act of1974. seeks the license. An authorized diplorna. This would have to be revised, as amended, and 5 U.S C. 553, the NRC representative of the facility licensee l

if Alternative 2 is adopted. to reflect the is proposing to adopt the following will verify that the requirements of this new educational credentials and experience required to become a shift amendments to 10 CF1t Part 55. paragraph have been met as a part of supervisor (i.e. 3 years experience with certifying the applicant's qualifications PART 55-OPERATORS' UCENSES pursuant to paragraph (a)(4) cf this 1 year as a RO).

7. The estimatedresource burdenin 1.The authority citation for Part 55 se: tion. Any person holding a senior the NRC associofed with theproposed continues to read as follows: operator license on [4 yes'rs following bochfit and the oFo//ahility of#cch the effective date of the rulej is exempt Authority: Sece.10? 161.182. 88 Stat. 939, resources. 948. 953, as a mended, sec. 234. 83 Sta t. 444. e s from the requirement to have a It le anticipated that tbere will be bachelor's degree.

amended (42 U.S C. 2137. 22o1. 2232. 2282):

relatively minor impact on NRC staff .ecs. 201, as emended. 202, a8 Stat.1242, as (1) For each applicant from a facility resources as a result ofimplementing amended.1244 (42 U.S C. 5841. 5642). that has not completed preoperational the proposed rule.For Alternative 1, Sectinns 55.41. 55 43. 55 45. and $5.59 also testing and an inillal startup test there may be some increase in the issued under sec. 306. Pub.1.97-425. 96 Stat program as described in its Final Safety number of applications to process and 2262 (42 U.S C.102261. Section 55.61 also Ar.alysis Report, as amended and issued under secs.186.187. 68 Stat. 955 (42 approved by the Commission, and has tests to administer,because of the attempts of current ROs to become sos $28 ,p ,'s of sec. 223. 68 Stat. 958, se not yet been licensed to operate at prior to the cut.off date, but this should emended (42 U.S C. 2273): II 55.3. 55.r1, power, the Commission may approve not cause a significant in pact on the 55 49. and 55 53 are issued under sec.1611. 68 alternatives that provide experience NRC staff. No new resource Stat. 949. as amended (42 U.S C. 2201(il); and equivalent to operation at twenty requirements are expected. Il 55.9. 5523. 55.25. and 55.53(f) are issued perceni power.

j

1

' l rederal Register / Vol. 53. No. 850 / Thursday. December 29, 1968 / Proposed Rules 52725 (2) For each applicant from a facility and (c). So 44. So 46, so 4a. 50 54. and 50.so(s) plant that has not conapleted I

that hr s (i) completed preoperational are issued under sec. telb. os Stat. 94s. as preoperational testing and an initial amended (42 U.S.C 2201fb)); il So.10(b) and startup test program as described in its I testing as described in its Final Safety

• i Analysis Report. as amended and {I;*"d g g}' }d ^j uU CN d FmalSafety Analysis Report.as approved by the Commission and (ii)le H 2 9. 22). 506 M70, nr1. m72. amended and approved by the

'.n an extended shutdown which 50.73, and 50.78 are issued under sec. telo. 66 Commission, and has not yet been precludes operation at greater than Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C 2201(o)). licensed to operate at power, the twenty percent power, the Commission Commission may approve alternatives

2. In i 50.54, paragraph M3) is that provide experience equivalent to may process the application and may removed and the introducto text to admiruster the wntten examination and operation at twenty percent power.

paragreph (m)(2) and paragraph , , , , ,

operating test required by ll 55.43 and (m)(2)(ii) are revised, to read as fouows:

55.45 of this part, but usy not issue the Dated at Rockvilla. Maryland thia 23rd da.s license until the required evidence of of December Wes. l I50.54 Condmons of Econees.

operation at Freater than twenty percent . . . . . For the Nuclear Regulatory Comminion.

lohn C Hoyle.  !

power is supplied. {m) * * *

(2) Notwithstanding any ether Actag secretaryfor e, Commission.

Alternative 2--Requirements for Supervisors provisions of this section. licensees of (FR Doc. 29993 Filed 12-28-ea. s.45 arn)

,",q

' "' h' ***'"'**'

Ust of Subjectsin to CFR Part so [o"g en Antitrust. Clas sified informa tion. Fire (1) * *

• protection. Incorporation by reference. (ii)(A) For single unit sites or multiple unit sites with one control room, the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Intergovernmental relations. Nuclear power plants and reactors. Penalty, licensee shaU have at its site a person Federal Aviation Administration Radiation protection. Reactor sitmg holding a senfor operator license for all criteria. Reporting and recordkeeping fueled units at the site who is assigned 14 CFR Part 73 requirements. responsibility for overall plant operation For the reasons set out in the at all times there is fuelin any unit, l Alespece Docket No. 84-AEA-41 preamble and under the authority of the (B) For multiple unit sites with two or Atomic Energy Act of1954. as amended. more contml rooms, the licensee shau Proposed Alteration of Restricted have at its site a person for each control Area R-6601 Fort A.P. Hill, VA the Enerfy Reorganization Act of1974.

as amended, and 6 U.S.C. 653 the NRC ream who: bolds a senior operator Aotwct Federal Aviation is proposing to adopt the foDowing license for all fueled untita cperat rt by the control room; and is responsible for Administration (FAA). DOT.

amendments to 10 CFR Part 50. AcTioec Notice of proposed rulemaking.

overall operation of these units at alj PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENSINta DF times there is fuelin any of them. s m Ann is notice proposes to alter PRODUCTION AND UTluZATKW Exemptions may be considered on a the boundaries and change the FACluTIES case by-case basis taking into account controlling anne ~ for Restricted Area the pbysica1Iocation of the control R-oool Fort a hill. VA.The 1.ne authority citation for part 50 to ms Department L. .ne Army has requested continues to read as fo!!ows: ,,7, g, g '*

Authority: Sees.102.103.104.105.181.1s2.

efrective date of the rule), each person

"" '"8'**"' *I E."l training 163.186.189. 68 Stat. 936. 937. 93& 948, 953. accommodate additiona described in parsgrapha (m)(2)(ii)(A) requirements. In addition. the proposed 954, 955.956. as amended. sec. 234. a3 Stat.

1244, as amended (42 US C 2132. 2133. 2134, and (m)(2)(ii)(B) of this section must action would revise the assigned baye one of more of the following 2135. 22ol. 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239. 2282); seca. controllN aI'"CI' 201. ae amended. 202. 206. 88 Stat 1242, as educationalcredentials: A bechelor's OAfts: Comments must be received on amended.1244.1246 (42 US.C 5641. 5842. degree from a program accredited by the or before February 13.1989.

sa4e). Accreditation Board for Engineering and Section 50.7 also issued under Pub L 95- Technology (ABET): a profesalonal ADt>RESSES: Send comments on the 6o1. sec.10,92 Stat. 2951 (42 US.C sast). engineer bcense issued by a state proposal in triplicate to: Director. FAA.

government; or, a bachelor's degree and Eastern Region. Attention: Manager. Air 6a S a 9 9 aa end d (42YS C 213 an Engin?er in-Training (EIT) certificate Traffic Division. Docket No. 88-AEA-4.

2235): sec.102. Pub. L 91-190. 63 Stal 853 (42 that indicates one has passed an Federal Aviation Administration.JFK US C 4332). Sections 50.23,50.35. 50 55, and examination administered by a etate or Intemational Airport.The Fitzgerald M50 also issued under sec.185. 68 Stat. 9'.5 Federal Building. Jamaica. NY tu30 (42 U.S C 2235). Sections 50.33a.50 55a andother recognized authority. The official docket may be examined Appendix Q also issued under sec.102. Pub. (D) Except as noted below, after [4 L 91-190. 83 Stat. ass (42 US.C 4332). yects following the effective date of the in the Rules Docket, weekdays.except

• rule), each person described in Fedetal holidays, between 8.50 a.m. and c2 se 5 at.12 2 paragraphs (m)(2)(ii)(A) and (m)(2)(ii)(B) 5:00 p.m.The FAA Rules Docket is Scciions M58. 50 91 and 50.92 also issued located in the Office of the Chief under Pub. L 97-415. 90 Stat. 2073 (42 US C of this section must have at least three Counsel. Room 916. 800 Independence 2239). Section M78 also issued under sec.

years of operating experience at a 122. 68 Stat. 939 (42 US C. 2152). Sections nuclear power plant. of which one yrar's Avenue.SW Washington.DC experience must be as a licensed control An informal docket may also be 50 80-50 81 also issued under sec.164.68 Stat.

954, as amended (42 US C 2234) Section room operator for a nuclear power examined during normal business hours 50.103 also issued under sec.108,68 Stat.939. reactor operating at greater than twenty at the office of the Regional Air Traffic as amended (42 IJ.S C. 2138). Append x F als M IM s Ms d Division, P

issued under see 187.66 Stat. 955(42 0.SC the nuclear power plant experience must FoR FURTHER MFoRMaTION CONTACT:

1237). be et the plant for which the person has Paul Gallant. Airspace Branch (ATO-For the purposes J sec. 223. 68 Stat 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 22et il So lop). (bk responsibility. For each person at a 240). Airspace. Rules and Aeronautical

M . . .

4 l

March 16, 1989 l I

l l

The Honorable Fred Upton United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Upton:

1 Your constituent, Mr. Chris Thomas Gorton, inquired about an amendment that we have recently proposed to t:1e 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 *eactor 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 DFRoss '

t uu we atifmf ' ' " ' - -- "" ' " "- '

BMorris Crf-ZRosztoczy Wlahs MFleishman Offe: RDB: RA:RES RDB.DRA:RES Name: JTelford:jp Wlahs t Date: 3/j3 /89 3/d /89 \

M MRb Ed0s OCA Offc:

Name: Rosztoczy DRA:RESh.6%...)

Morris DD/GRI: RES TPSpeis D:RE.

ESBeckjord V$tello JBradburnq

(

g Date: 3/l.3/89 3/g1/89 3/ /89 3//3/89 3/ /89 3//f /89 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY

_ _ _ _ _ _ _