ML20248C668

Responds to Constituent Kr Baker Concerns Re NRC Proposed Amend to Regulations Entitled, Educ & Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators & Supervisors at Nuclear Power Plants

ML20248C668
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/22/1989
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Upton F HOUSE OF REP.
References
FRN-53FR52716, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-55 CCS, NUDOCS 8904110276
Download: ML20248C668 (13)

Text

-

..heog

~k UNITED STATES 4[

g-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5,

j W ASHINGTON, 0. C. 20555 k...../

March 22, 1989 The f!onorable Fred Upton United States House of Representatives llachington, "C 2057"

Dear Congressman Upton:

Your constituent, Mr. Kenneth R. Baker, 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 respond to potential accident situations and to effectively restore the reactor to a safe and stable condition.

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

The first alternative would apply to senior reactor operators.

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

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

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

The desired educational credentials are:

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

If the first alternative were selected for final promulgation, it would become effective four years later.

But, all current senior reactor operators who hold a valid license on the date four years after final rule promulgation would be exempt (grandfathered).

This exemption would ensure that the experience of all current senior reactor operators is retaired. Delaying the implementation of the first alternative by four years allows time for those reactor operators who CcST 8904uo2 M M cg22 FULL TEXT ASCll SCAN h Ekf NDENCE PDC; l

t 1

i s

a o

Honorable Fred Upton 2

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 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) obtain 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 Recommendations" (NUREG-0578), " Lessons Learned Task Force," (NUREG-0585), "Three Mile Island:

A Report to the Consissioner's and to the Public" (NUREG/CR-1240, the Rogovin report), and " Report of the Peer Advisory Panel and thy Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Operator Qualifications" (SECY-82-162) have addressed the issue 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 concents, 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.

Furthermore, I would emphasize that the specific concerns expressed by your constituent, Mr. Baker, 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,

/

/]~l c

/(/

Mctor Shell'o, Jr[/ /

Executive Direct /r for Operations

Enclosure:

Federal Register notice

Fed:ral Regial:t / Vol. 83. No. 250 / nursday. D:cember 29. 1988 / Proposed Rules 52M6 er 4 importers = ould be involved. name

2. Paragraph (a) cf I M.s wculd be socn as practicable, the Consadeeian has l

importations are insignificant when avised to read as follows:

decided to extend the comment period 4

for an additional thirty days.The compared with the 303.000 or more extended comment period now expires swine that were imported into the munwho mge W ws w hu.

on February 27.1980.

United States in 1987.

wn st in I,er is oats De co*nment period has been In addition. Great Britain has no rk la o ow tr e rusry gn 1ia.

Dominican 1

ee andIn t on will be conaldered if it is practical to do (England Scotland. Wales, and Isle of so, but usurance of consideration e obere ed as being Man). laeland. New Zealand. Northern cannot be given except as to commente hog cholera, commerical shipments of Ireland. Norway, the Republic of received on or before this date.

rk products fross that c.ountry to the Ireland. Sweden, and Trust Territory of nus, while individuals woubrohibited.

nited States would still be the Pac 1Sc lalands.8 Aeonessss: Mail written comments to:

i he Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ellowed to import small quantities of Commission. Washington. DC 20555, pork and pork products ior personal S NM8 I Am*"8'81 Attention: Docketing and Service consumption. commercial shipments

3. Section 94.10 would be amended by Branch. Copies of comments received would continue to be ineligible for adding " Great Bntain (England, may be examined at the NRC Public importation.

Scotland. Wales, and Isle of Man)."

Document Room. 2120 L Street NW.,

For these reasons, the amount of pork immediaWy eMinland.".

Washington, DC.

c.nd pork products imported into the United States from Great Britain would Done in Washington. DC this 22 day of Deliver comments 10:11155 Rockville remain very small, and would hiive no December sees-Pike. Rockville. MD between 7:30 a.m.

significant impact os U.S. swine James W. Closwe.

and 4:15 p.m. weekdays.

producers.

Administrator. AnimolandMontHsofth Pon PuerrMan estronuATsou coastACT:

Under these circumstances, the lospection Service.

Moni Dey. Office of Nuclest Regulatory Administrator of the Animal and Plant (FR Doc. es-2e912 Ned 12-26-as. e 45 am)

Research U.S.NuclearRegulatory Heatth Inpseetion f;ervice has sauno caos se Commission. Wsshington, DC 20555.

determined that this action would not

- - _ - - - Telephone (301) 492-3730.

have a significant economic impact on a of December. tese,'e. Maryland this 22nd day Deled at Rockvil substantial number of small entitles.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM1888ON For the Nuclear Regulatory Comminion.

I Paperwork Reduction Act De regulations in this proposal 10 CFR Part 50 John C. Hoyle.

contain no information collection or Actittg Secretaryfor the Commission.

recordkeeping requirements under the Ensuring the Effectiveness of (FR Doc. as-2990: Filed 12 26-aa. 4.45 am)

Maintenance Programs for Nucisar

,w,, g,,,

Paperwork Reduction Act of1980(44 Power Planta; Extension of Comment l

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Ported Esecutive Order 12373

1. MOMM l

This program /setivity is listed in the AMa@ckar Regulatory Comausemn.

Education and Esportence Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Actiosa: Proposed rule: Extension of Requirements for Senior Reactor unc'er No.10,025 and is subject to comment period.

Operalors and Supervisors at Nuclear Executive Order 12372. which requiru Pew Plants intergovemrnental consultation with sumuany: On November 28.1988 (53 FR te ofGef als. (See 7 CFR Part 47822) the Commission blished for Aosacy: Nuclear Regulatory pubbe comment a rule i at would Commlulon.

Ust of Subjectsin e CFR Part te require commercial nuclear power plant Actiose: Proposed rule.

licensees to strengthen their Animal daeases. Hog cholera !mport.

"*in es sumuAny:The Nuclear Regulstory bd 1.ivestock and livestock products. Meat d

,g

,g man n s p posing i amend us and mest products. Milk Pooltry and events caused by the leek of effective regulations regarding educational poultry products.

maintenance.The comment period for requirements for operating personnd at Accordingly,e CFR Part 94 would be this proposed rule was to have expired nuclear power plants.The proposed amended es follows on lanuary 27,1989.ne Nuclear amendments would require additional PART 94-RINDERPESTe POOT AND.

Management and Resources Council education and experience requirements MOUTH DISEASE. FOWL PEST (FOW1.

(NUMARC) has reqt eled a sixty day for senior operators and supervisors. In PLAGUE), NEWCASTLE DISEASE eatension of the comment period. In promulgating the pro',,osed amendments,

( AVIAN PNEUMOENCEPHALITIS),

view of the imporlance of the proposed the Commission has identified Iwo l

AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, AND HOG rule, the amount of time that the alternatives' CHOLERA: PROHIBITED AND NLJMARC suggests is required in order tinJet the first alternative, the RESTRICT ED IMPORTATIONS to provide meaningful comments on proposed amendment would apply to behalf of its member utilities. and the senior operators. It would require th t 1.The authority citation for Part 94 desirability of developing a final rule as eJch applicant for a seniot operator 4

would continue to read as follows:

licenu to operate a nuclear power Auttsurity:7 U.S C 147s.1Soee.181.1s2.

i 9.i., g, p, mew of tbie pari and perte teactor have a bachelor's degree in 4so, le U.S C 1300. It U.S.C.111.11sa.134a.

s2. es sa and 327 of tNe chaptar for oth,

13412.134c, and 134!. 310 5.C 97o1: 42 U.S C proub.t.one end et sincione epoe nsapermon of engineering, engineering technology, or 4.13 t. 41317 CHL L17. L51. and 371.2(d).

emne and thew products.

the physical sciences from an accredited f

I

s Feder:1 Regist:r / Vol. 53, No. 250 / Thursday Decembzr 29. 1968 / Proposed Rules

$2717 s

university or college.ne proposed suretansewTAny seronesAftose an alternate means of providing the Back "und necessary technical and academic amendment would upgrade the I

operating, engineering, and accident knowledge to the shift crew. Opuon 1 of management expertise provided on shift Since the Three Mile Island Unit the Policy Statement pernuts an by combining engineerig expertise and (TMI-21 accident on March 28,1979, in individual to serve in the combined operating experience in the senior which human error, among other factors. Senior Operator / Shift Technical opersior position.

contributed to the consequences of the Advisor (SO/STA) role if that individual Under the second alternative, the accident, the issue of academic holds either a bachelor's degree in proposed amendment would apply to requirements for retctor operators has enginwring, ugh &g hl[

persons who have supervisory been a major concern of the Nuclear physical science, or a profession responsibilities, such as shift Regulatory Cornmission (NRC). In July engineer's license. Option 2 permits supervisors or senior managers. It would 1979. 'TMI-2 Lessons 14arned Task continuation of the separate STA who require that they have enhanced Force Status Report and She,rt Tenn rotates with the shift and holds a educational credentials and experience Recommendations, [NUREG-0578)8 badalor's de8"' w '9W& W over that which is normally required for made specific recommendations for a ge gteria as stated in, senior reactor operators.The proposed Shift Technical Advisor (STA) to C1 fication ofIMI Action Plan amendment would upgrade the provide engineering and accident operating. engineering, and accident assessment expertise during other than Requimments N37hne manegement expertise provided on shift normal operating conditions. On Comndule also encoungu the shift October 30,1979, the NRC notified all supervisor to serve in the dual-role by combining engineerig exhrtise and operating nuclear power bcensees of the position, and the STA to take an active operating experience in tae s t role in shift activitiu.

supervisor position.

short term STA requirements,i.e., that He 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)($1 R 19561). He would further ensure the protection of 1980,"Clarincation of TMI Action Plan purpose of the ANpRM was to exend the health and safety of the public by Requirements." (NUREG-0737),

the currentlevel 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 regardingimplementation of the STA Commission's Policy Statement on and restore the reactor to a safe and position. It identified the STA as a Engineering Expertise on Shift (50 m stable condition.

temporary position pending a 43621) and to ensure that senior parts: Comment period expires Commission decision regarding long operators have operating experience on February 27.1989. Comments received range upgrading of reactor operator and a commercial nuclear reactor operating after this date will be considered if it la senior operator capabilities.

at greater than twenty per:ent power, practical to do so, but the Commission is ne qualifications of operators were e.g.," hot" operating experience (Generic able to assure consideration only for also addressed by the 1979. " lessons f.Atter 64-16).De ANpRM was the comments received on or before this Leamed Task Force," (NUREG-0585),

result of a Commission decialon to

date, the 1980 Rogovin report. "nree Mile consider an amendment to its Aconessta:Mallcommants to:ne Island: A F.eport to the Commissioners regulations (Parts 50 and 55) and to Secretary of the Commission, U.S.

and to the public," (NUREG/CR-1240).

obtain comments on the contemplated Nuclear Regulatory Commlulon, and the 142," 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 Commiss!on on Operator expertise on shift.

Deliver comments to One White Flint Quatincations,"(SECY 82-162p in addition to describing the proposed North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Although the 1982 report recommended rule in general, the ANPRM presented a against imposition of a degree list of twenty questions concerning Maryland, between L30 a.m. and 415 nquirement, the consensus among thne various aspects and implications of the p m. Comments may also be delivered to reports was that grestar technical and proposed rule. Two hundred letters were the NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L Street, Lower level. NW., Washington, academic knowledge among shift received in response to the ANPRM. A DC between h30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m, operati personnel would t e beneficial summary and analysis of the comments Examine comments received, the to the se ety of nuc! ear power plants.

are included in SECY-47-101 dated obe 1

the C

environmental assessment and finding April 16,1987. ne NRC has reviewed. in of no significant impact, and the p

g p

Regi

(

detail, all the commento made on the regulatory analysis at the NRC Public 43621) a final pob,ey statement on ANPRM as well as commenta received enE neerin8 expertise on shift to r,llow since that time. In general, the i

Document Room. 2120 L Street.14wer Level. NW., Washington, DC.

commenters were opposed to a degree Obtain single copies of the

• Copin of all NURzcs nfmnaed mer l'8 requirement for senior operstora.*Ihe environmental assessment and finding

%*j,usgu aj,,p' '

proposed amendments in this notice en of no significant impset and the us con,nmenipnntinaonice. p o. sowoa:

reflect in detail many of the comments regulatory analysis from M.R.

wubnston. DC EmMost Copies may also be and responses to the quesilons posed.

Fleishman. Office of Nucleat Regulatory pur6ued from the National Tednicalinformauon Apart from the detailed comments on Research, Washington. DC 20555,

[ Q g Q 'g % ce g Pw1 the proposed contents of the rule, a telephone (301) 492-4794.

ena. die go, uispecuon or copyins for e see in the number of general comments were rom FURTHER INFoRMAT)ON CONTACT; NRC Public Doewnent Room. tuo L Street tower provided regarding the possible adverse M R. Fleishman Office of Nuclear 1*"W

• "M"8'" DC effects of requiring degrees for senior Regulatory Research. U.S. Nuclear c nI. N"l'" eu*sNed ynl,smion ud operstors. %e public comments as well s

e Regulatory Commission, Washington.

the NRC Public Document Room et ruo L Strat, as those rsised during NRC staff review, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3794.

tower La nI. NW. WuMng'on DC.

Can be categorized as follows:

4-Fad:r:1 Rssister / Vol. 53, No. 250 /.gThursday December 29, 1988 / Proposed Rults 52713

1. 'Ihe proposed rule is not nev;ss.q Concurrent Policy Statement respor.d to complex transients and

2. Emper6ecoe le more import. int than a Tlie Commission will publ 6h accidents and thereby further ensure the I

h$

se rule wdi Lw* e carative concurrently with the fmal rule a policy p}t ctiun of the heelth and safety of the j

t fet V

statement which encouruges nuclear p

rep po d rul sL!t in e p ester power plant bcensees, working with the The policy statement on enameenng sperntur turnwet role r uclear industry, to:

expertise on shift pubbshed in the j

s. The prorneed rule will basically block a

1. Implement personnel pubcies that N (50 the career path of reactor orcretors resultin8 empheme the opportunities for heensed FR 43621)provided an intens method of An lower morele.

operators to enume pooltions ofincrewed achieving more engineering capability e There will be less overall expenance on management responsibility; on shifi. Essentially, with Alternative 1 shift due to the promotion of SOe into

2. Develop programs that would enable the NRC is moving from intarim sensgement positions.

currently bcensed seruor operators. rcector requirements which provide ;,@,;;,",gg

]

The Adeory Committee on Reactor oPeretors and shift supervisors to obtain capability for accident conditions (the SafeFuss e ACRS) also considered the colieve degrees; and STA) to requiring engineering -

a Obten college mdst for appropriate preposed requirement and discussed it nut. lear power plant training and work capability, and nuclear power plant at several me:tinas in 1986 and 1987.

experience through arrangements with the operating rience. In the same The ACRS strongly supported the academic ocetur-individual (th SO) h pt concept of hav%g engineering er.pertise

^

ould 'e,opo6 d Dhuloo en each shift. However, they did not a

applicant for a serlor operstor 50) agree that requir' a degree for senior The NRC is concerned that operator license to operste a nuclear rea(ctor, eperators was th est approach, though qualifications to deal with accidente they agreed that specific technical beyond design basis conditions warrant afterl4 years following the effective knowledge should be required. They improvement. Operator 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 VPerating procedures generally do not technology, or the physical sciences knowledgeable ladividuals, the consider accident conditions beyond from an accredited university or collegm proposed rule should be reconsidered.

inadequate core cooling. Here is a Applicants with other bachelor's i

The Commission has carefully general consensus that well qualified de es from an accredited institution, considmd the numerous comments Operators can substantially rnitigate the or m a foreign college or urJversity, received on the ANPRM as well as the effects of severe accidenta.ne industry would be considered on a case-by case recommendations of the ACRS.During Degraded Core Rulemaking Program basis if the utility icensee) certifies l

i its deliberauons subsequent to the (IDCOR) industry group. for example, that the applicant as dernonstrated 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 SO position. The Commission Arnproving engineering expertise on shift; posed by these conditions.The NRC is does not want to prevent individuals t Promd with the contemplated des

• considering the need for more extensive with excellent engineering experience, ruls and concumnt pobey statement es severe accident training and emergency but with nontechnical degrees, from operating procedures as well as becoming sos: however, degree o Em engineering quaWications for senior eq*akncM no longe & accepted.

t for tar in a les Operatus on shift who hue bachelor's operators.

An accredited university or college is degrwe here are numerous approaches that defined as an educational institution in

2. Propose a rule to require a desmd may be taken regarding the issue of the United States which has been ndividual on shift similar to a Senior improved operator capabilities: the approved by a regional accrediting Manager, se desenbed in SECY-46-106.

Commission has decided to request body.

1 i

• Proposed Rulemaking Concoming comments on two approaches.The The proposed amendment would Requirements for Senior Managere '

proposed amendments would onl) affect apply to applicants for a SO to operate a L Aroeod the Puhey Statement on Engineering Empertise on Shift (50 l'R 43rct) persons associated with nuclear power nLelear power reactor. People who held rebetors. They would not affect persons 50 licenses on [4 years following the regr end o es es. o u h e' [P ass clated with non power nuclear effective date of the rulej would be combined SO/STA option and to phase out reactors such as research and test exempt ficm the degree requirement woe of separate STA.

reactors. Each allemative appruach will Thus, those persons who hold a senior be considered in parallel.Each approach operator license on l4 years following The Commission has decided to is discussed separately.Much of the the effective date of the rule). would be proposed two altemative arrendrnents d:scussion 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 with the understanding that, following viewed on its own merits, the public comment period, only one amendment. Even if they were to lose citernatise would be selected for final -

AI"8'I"' J-A'9"I""'8'8 /8' 8'*,8' their SO license in the future, e.g. due to '

/

promulgation. The alternatives proposed Optors a change in jobs o$lants. they could still reapply for a new SO license are similar to Options 1 and 2 but with The purpose of this proposed without satisfying the degree significant differences based on attemative is to upgrade the operating.

requirement. It te recognized that comments and further considerations by engineering, and accident roanagement "grandfathering" current sos could the Commission following the ANpKM.

expertise provided on shift by result in sos without degrees for en 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 operator function. The NRC believes this least the same degree of engineering bensfir%1 to have a full public airing of approach will enhance the capability of expertise on shift as currently exista, the via, 2 these)f proposals.

the operating staff to analyse and STA policy described under options 1 ~

%e

Federal R@r / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursday. Decembrr 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 82n9 a*id 2 of the October 2s.1965 poHey of " hot" and at least 3 years tota!

. on educational criteria. wou!d have to

^

statement (50 TR 43621) would continue operating experience fer each applicant be revised to reflect this amendment.

in effect. Thus, if tw9 grandfathered" for a SO license. A RO beense is ne concurrent policy statement is sos are used on shift'the facihry required in veder to get *het" control latended to encourage licensees licensee would be required to have a room geraung expenence: thus. the (uulities) and the nuclear industry to separate individual on shift who has the proposed amendment expands the provide incentives and management STA education and experienoc current h"RC policy, described in opportunities for sos as well as to described in NUREG4737. If one of the Regulatory Guide 1 A Revision 2. dated improve the engineerms capabihtin of SOe has a degree and one is April les7. " Qualification and Training b on shift crew.ne SO with a degree "psodfathered." Option 1 of the pobey of personnel for Nucleer power plants."

and shift operating experience can statement would be satisfied. When all to ensure that sos with depees have become a valuable personnel resource sos have degrws, the policy statement sufficient operating expenence, for the stility, one who combines shift would no longer be needed.

Regulatory Guide 1A in poeltion C.1.ea operational management experience ne concurrent policy statement will allows an applicant for a SO license with the potential for greater encourage previously licensed sos to with a degree to have only g years of management responsibility.h policy obtain depees. In the past the NRC has responsible power plant experience, statement. among other things. wi!!

accepted " equivalents" to the bachelor's none of which needs to be as a reactor encourage licensees to provide that depce for a separate STA.no operator. Thus, Regulatory Golde 1.8 career path.

equivalents were based upon will be revised if the proposed ne Commissia believu b' specialized utility training or other work amendment la adopted.De proposed requiring a depw will cehie @

experiences. For the proposed amendment would require the SO sulof havig sos wh han amendment, however, equivalency applicant with a degree to serve as a RO j

c ca!an would not be acceptable to the NRC in at greater than 20 percent power for at

[*,U'(*j,"y#I",ce.

lieu of a degree.Because the least 1 year. This does not mean that the Cf'd*ntf 8I8 th8t 8h d improve their Commission is not in a position to reactor must be at power 100 percent of perf rmance as operators and possibly evaluate the academic equivalency of the time during the year, however, the 1 open esmr paths imm which th_e_y may

^

utihty training, it encourages utilities to year time period should not include have been excluded in the past.The sos seek out academic institutions who will periods of significant downtime for with depees should be able to respond evaluate the training programs and pant maintenance or refueling (i.e. periods better to off normalincidents.Whoe course credit for such equivalency based that exceed 6 weeks duration). Special there will be increased trotnina to cover upon work experience os specialized provisions are proposed in order to accident conditions. tratning alone is not training.Thus the concurrent policy accommodate those applicants from sufficient. it is impossible to cover every statement will encourage efforts to have facilities that are unable to operste eventuality during training. &

the training accepted by the colleges for above twenty percent power doe either operators must have sufficient partial credit toward fulfilling the to (a) the facilities not having completed understanding of basic engineering requirements of an accredited degree.

their initial startup propam and being principles, and detailed knowledge of the degree re ulrement would not licensed to run at power, or (b) the nuclear design and operation to apply to license 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 statament will encourage ROs to obtain licensed to run at power, alternative training sessions. In addition. 80s with degras so that they can propeas to the approaches to meet the twenty percent depees will have greater p.uty for SO position and to other utihty power requirement may be approved by professional growth since they will here positions. The Commission believes a the Commission. la the case of facilities degm requirement for sos on shift, in extended shutdown, the Commission the qualifications needed to advance to along with the concurrent policy may process the application and managerfal positions. With the chance statement, will not only enhance public administer the written and operating for personal powth should come yester health and safety, but udl also enhance tests but would defer issuance of the job satisfaction.h enlidity of these Deliefs has bun reenforced by the promotion opportunities for sos.

senior operating license untd the twenty

• • Perlences oflicensed operators The cutoff date of four years following percent power requirement is fulfilled.

the effective date of the rule for This proposed requirement for a SO participating in an ongoing utility apphcation for a SO license by applicant with a degree also implies that sponsored propam similar to what is individuals who do not have degrees is an applicant for a RO license with a being proposed herein. The Comrnission c.hosen for three reasons.First.it will degree must only have 2 yurs of related alsobelieves that migration of sos allow operators now in training nuclear power plant experience. This is upward into plant management wil!

suffi: lent time and notice to complete a a change to the guidance in Regulatory contribute to hnproved plant safety, dest ee before application. Second. it Guide 1.8 which endorses the American Nierndire 2--Requirements for should not cause undue hardship on National Standard. ANSI /ANS-3.1-1981. g cperators who are now in the process of " Selection. Qualification and Training of preparing and training for the sector personnel for Nuclear power Plants."

The purpose of this proposed orera f or license, and third. licensees The stanJard Indicates that a RO alternative is tc upgrade the operating.

hsve t.een encouroged by the policy applicant must 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 (Option 1) to move toward a dual-which at least 1 year shall be nuclear combining both engineering expertise rcle SO/STA position Furthermore.

power experience. lf the proposed and operating experience in the shift those operstors who are licensed as sos amendment is adopted. it would supervisor or senior manger function en the cutoff date would be supersede the guidance in Regulatory described in i 50.54(m)(7)(if) of the

" grandfathered."

Guide 1.8 and necessitate lis revision in regulations. The NRC believes this will in Altemative 1.the proposed accord with the amendment. Also, enhance the capability c,f the opersting amendment would also require one year position C.1.d of Re;;ulatory Cuide 1.8.

stcff to analyze and respond to cc r. plex,

1

' '52 20 Federal Regista / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Dursday. December 29. 1983 / Proposed Rules

~

transients and accidents and thereby under options 1 and 2 in the October 20.

operating experience for each shift -

further ensure the protection of the 1985 policy statement (50 m 43621) -

T.ter or senior manager.%e health and safety of the public.

would be eliminated since the shift proposed amendment changes the ne policy statement on engineering supervisor would be providing the current NRC policy, described in expertise on shift published in the engineering expertise on shift and there Regulatory Guide 1.4. Revis!?n 2. dated Federal Register on October 28.1988 (50 would be no need for the STA.

April les7. " Qualification aal Training n 43621) provided an interim method of in the past the NRC has accepted of personnel for Nuclear power p. ants."

achieving more engineering capability

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

on shift. Essentiauy, with 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.Dus. Regulatory requirements which provide engineering trainmg or other work experiences. For Guide 1.8 will be revised. If the proposed capability for accident conditions (the the proposed amendment, however, amendment is adopted, to reflect the STA). to requiring engineering equivalency would not be acceptable to. new educational credentials and -

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 8 years experienes with superdoor or senior manager.

. not in a position to evaluate the 1 year as a RO).The proposed in Alterneuve 2. the proposed academic equivalency of utility training. amendment would require the shift amendrnent would revise i 50.54.

It encourages utilities to seek out -

' supervisor to serve as a RO at greater Conditions of licenses, regarding the sesdemic tr'etitutions who will evaluate than 20 percent power for at least 1 requirements for a shift supervisor or the training programs and grant couree year.This does not mean that the senior manoper. lt makes a distinction credit for such equivalency based upon mactor 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 concurmnt policy statement year time period should notinclude more control rooms.Theintent of the will encourage efforts to have the periods of significant downtime for proposed amendmentis to ensure that training accepted by the colleges for maintenance or refueling (i.e periods there is a separate shift supervisor for partial credit toward fulfillms the

. that exceed 6 weeks duration). 8pecial each control room who is responsible educational requirements for the shift provisions are proposedin order to for overall operation of all fueled units supervisors.

accommodate shift supervisors from operated by the control room at all times The educational credential facilities that are unable to operate there is fuelin any of the units.The requirement would not apply to licensed ' above twenty percent power due to the Commission may permit exemptions to reactor operators (ROs) or senior facilities not having completed their the one supervieor per control room oferefors (sos).De concurrent policy initialstartup program and being amendment, on a case-by. case basis. for statement will encourage all ROs and licensed to run at power. For such those situations where control rooms sos to obtain the enhanced educational facilities, altemative approaches to meet may be close to each other.The credentials so that they can progress 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 The concunent policy statementis fo!!owing the effective date of the rule].

elleves that the educational intended to encourage licensees to have one or more of the following require jge t for shift supervisc rs, along (utilities) and the nuclear industry to enhanced educational credentials: A with the; current policy statement, will provide incentiva and management bachelor's degree from a program not only enhance pubbe beal.h and opportunities for shift supervisors as accredited by the Accreditation Board safety, but will also provide a route for well as to improve the engineering for Engineering and Technology (ABET); promoting ROs and sos.By restricting capabilities of the on shift crew.ne a professional engineer license issued the requirement to shift supervisors the shift supervisor with enhanced by a state sovernment: or, a bachelor's Commission believes that the normal educationalcredentials and shift degree and an Engineer.in Tratning progression from RO to SO can be operating experience can become a I

(EIT) certificate that indicates one has retained for those ROs and sos who do valuable personnelresource for the passed an examination administered by not wish to obtain the enhanced utility, one who combines shift a state or other recognized authority, educational credentials and who have operational management experience This requirement will ensure a minimum no desire to enter management.

with the potential for greater les el of engineering expertise for each The date of four years following the management responsibility.ne policy shift supervisor.The bachelor's degree effective date of the rule for statement, among other things, will with the EIT would not necessarily have implementation of the educational encourage licensees to provide that I

1 to be in a technical discipline, provided credentials requirement for shift career path; both for shm supervisors the pe: son meets the state education supervisors is chosen for two renons.

and other operating personnel who and experience criteria for First. It will allow shift supervisors obtain enhanced educational -

admin stration of the EIT.The NRC sufficient time and notice to complete a credentials, recopires that in some statesit may not degree. Second. It'should not cause The Comadssion 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 supenisors who have either a bachelor's degree from an ABET Expertise on Shift (Option 1) to move operational experience, and technical accredited program or a bachelor's toward a dual. role SO/STA position; and academic knowledge, that should degree 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 availab!: for in Altemative 2. the proposed paths from which they may have been adtr.inistering on Eli equivalant amendment would also require one year excluded in the past. The shift examina tion. The STA policy described of " hot" and at least 3 years total supervisors should be able to respond

Federal Register / Vcl. 53. No. 250 / ~1turoday. December C.1988 / Proposed Rules 32721 1

better to off normalincidents. While and throughout the utibty with a

' safety; othere were discussed and there will be increased training to cover resultant improvement in plant safety.

dropped because no basis was found to support them.The proposal for desmd i

accident conditions, training alone is not invitadon Wemnt s ufficient. It is impossible to cover every operators was an example of the latter.

es er.tustity during training.TW ahlft 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 alterneuves are proposed, the earlier public comments on % lesue.

pnnciples, and detailed knowledge of Commission specifically encourages the mere potential for imposition of this -

nuclear design and operation to comments reganting comparison of the requirement is having a nesetive impact appropriately respond to situations that attemauves. Comments are particularly on operator morale. I ocatinue to believe have not been previously covered in solicited in regard to:

a requirement for degreed senior training sessions. In addition, shift

1. Which alternative is preferable assuming operetors is ill advised. Not only is there supervisors with enhanced educational one will be ulected?

no demonstrated safety benefit from this endentials will have greater opportunity

2. what are the potentialimpacts of sech of action but there is a significant potentiel for professional growth since they wiu the attemativu on licensee stamngt for negative safety implications. To once have the qualifications needed to a Rtgarding implementation of me again publish this proposal will only advance to managedal positions.The attemauvu. would there he a asore continue the negative impact this issue Commission also believes that au"gration appropriate traneition period for each is having on operator morale, the of shift supervisors upward into plant alyme v Berent in 1981, the Commission formed a nanaqtement will contribute to improve techhical Peer review panelto consider methods for demonstratiNcndentials, specifically reactor operstar overeLI plant safety.

expertin with education Conclusion Would some other method be desirable for qualifications including whether a BS this purposef Are there other attemative leveldegree should be required for Although the Commission believn ways to demonstrate, knowledge of senior operators. His peer review panel there is a net benefit of the p appropriate engineenne fundamental fo' rrconcluded (ref. SECY-42-tet) that not amendments in enhancing pub c health people who may be ineligible to take the E o,j was gm nm,ldonce eat a y

and safety,it acknowledges that this examination judgmentis based on a qualitative

s. Should a requirement be imposed formal degree was necessary for job auessment of the mlative contributions squiring all senior operatore to pass an performance but that "impoeltion of of various factors, some with potential Engineering in Training equivalent such a requirement, without evidence examination as a messum o basic technical est &e mquimmentis nuded to sitive im acts and others with ampertise in addition to. or instead af. the two perform the jch, is likely to result in a pote.ntial negative impacts.%e most proposals to this notice? If such a decrement in overed performance and sigruGcant positive factor is ge requirement were la place, would it be ~

thus impairpublic safety"l emphasis anhanced capabili of the shift necenary to requim enhanced educational added) in spite of numemus etudies operating staff to e ectively manage credentials for shift supervisoret conducted by the staff since 1982, there accidents. Increased operating

6. Independent of a degru requirement. le experience of plant management is also there a nud for the experience mquimmente is still no evidence that a BS degree is an anticipated longer term benefit, to be increend for the shih supervisor D"ded to perform the job of senior However, there are possible position? As the proposed requirements operator. In fact. in the recent report disadvantages.For Altemative 1.they called for in the two attematives sumc6entf entitled " Human Factors Research and include (1) the potential for lower Additional Vlows of Comm'ralmr Nuclear Safety". the National Research Council panelon Human Factors cnorale among reactor operators without Roberts degrees whose natural camer path.

Research Needs in Nuclear Regulatory promotion to the SO level,is blocked, in this propoud rulemaking the Research recommended research in this and (2) the potential reduction of overall Commission is considering two area prior to making a degne operating experience on shift as sos attematives regarding educadonal mandatory. The panel considered this with degrees move to other work. For requirements for operatina personnel.

research a high priority as "(a)n Altemative 2. the svedvantages include The first attemative, which is an old inpdicious regulation couldlead 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.De recruiting without necessarily improving promotion to the shift supervisor levelis second attemative would require safety."

LSeked.

enhanced educational credentials for Although I agree that it la valuable to Upon consid? ration of these and other supervisory pemonnel. Although I have have personnel with operating f a etors, such as those identified by the not reached a judgment on the need for experience in utility management, it is l

pblic comment process on the ANPIM supervisory personnel to have enhanced inappropriate to attempt to accomplish the Commission concludes, at this time, educational credentials,I am supporting this objective by so severely penalizing that the overall effect of the proposed the publishing of the second alternative mactor operators and senior operators I s r.er.dments would be beneficist and in order to obtaln the benefit of the do not believe that one obtains the would 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 so.

obtaining a degree.Those individuals improved quality of the operational 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.

qualif' cations and organization of the.

of senior operstors who have degrees.

The Commission belleses that operating crew at nuclear power plants.

This should provide a eufficient 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 stility professionalism both in the control room determined that they would enhance management.

l 52722 F.adceal Register / Vol.' 53, No. 250 / Thursday. Decernber 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules I believe that h Comminion and the Reduction Act of 1900 (44 U.S.C. 3801 et compared to larger organiutions in the ume industry have put in place a number of seq.). Existing requirements were businees community.

progesms which have upgraded and will approved by the Office of Management 1 How the propowd mgulations oeuld be cor,tmue to upgrade the qualifications of and Budget approval numbers 3150-modened to take into account their diffenne i

oude a ihm.

I reactor o ratots. In addition, the 0011,315tH1018, and 3150 4030 Regulatwy Analysis ments the w Ma oE[

f all q 1 ed o re ors wi co ne

' ' " " d' *d **

to pay davidends in the future. A number The Commission has prepared a draft

,P"P"'d '

uggested b c

e of utihtie s are providing opportunities regulatory analysis for this proposed

4. How the proposed regulations, as for their operators to further their regulation.The analysis examines the modified. would som closely equalise the education. I fully support and encourage costs and benefits of the alternatives impact of NRC reguladone or create more these initiatives.These programs will considered by the Commission.The equal soness to the benents of Federal aHow those with ability and desire to draft regulatory analysis is available for programs as opposed to providing special progress up the management chain. I em inspection and copying for a fee at the advantasse to any ladividuals or youpe.

confident thet these initiatives will NRC Public Document Room. 2120 L

5. How the proposed regulatieas, as a

w ul stiu adequately protect the enhance the safe operation of our Street. Lower IAVel. NW., Washington, pu fety.

nuclear power plants. However, one can DC. Single copies of the analysis may be not expect im:nediate results.These obtained from M. R. Fleishman. Office of De comments should be sent to the initiatives take time to show Nuclear Regulatory Research.

Secretary of the Commission. U.S.

improvements.

Washington DC 20555, telephone (301)

Nuclear Regulatory Commission When commenting on Altemative 2 of 492-3794.

Washington. DC 20655, Attention:

the proposed rulemakingIwiu be The Commission requests public Docketing and Service Branch.

particularly interested in comments comment on the draft analysis, concerning the viability of this proposal. Comments on the draft analysis may be Back8t Analysis To be viable, this proposal must allow submitted to the NRC as indicated under As required by to CFR 50.109, the for the orderly progression of operating the ADDRESSES heading.

Commission has completed a backfit personnel through the ranks from Regulatory Flexibility Certincation analysis for the proposed rule.The Commission has determined, based on auxihary operator to shift supervisor so As required by the Regulatory this analysis, that backfitting to comply as to ensure experienced personnel on shift. Specifically, I would like to know, Flexibility Act of 1980. 5 U.S.C. 805(b),

with b requimmets of sh rW the Commission certifies that this rule,if rule wiH provide a obte som from the perspective of current operating personnel. how accessible are promulgated, will not have a significant in protection tohublic health and safety ABET accredited engineering programs? economic impact upon a substantial

, g,,,,,,

un ud WW e If b PE or EIT options are selected, number of small entities. This proposed cost which is justified by the substantial which states allow registration and/or rule affects only the licensing and increase.no backfit analysis on which ration of nuclear power plants. It this ddumiudeis hhh ofso affects individuals licensed as classification as an EIT without an a

g,gg,,,,'

ABET accredited degreef in hght of the fact that states require work experience operators at these plants.De to be registered as a PE and, with a non, cornpanies that own these plants and g,foiement of th,

f'scobjecin, es g

accredited engineering or related degree, the individual plant employees licennd

,,3 ".'A'P Pose la designadio 8'

often require work experience to be to operate them do not fall within the classified as an EIT. will state scope of the definition of"sman The objective of the proposed rule is registration boards grant credit for entities" set forth in the Regulatory to upgrade b operating enginwring.

operating experience as " acceptable Flexibility Act or the Small Business and accident management expertise professional experience... of a grade Size Standards set out in regulations Provided on shift by combining both and character indicating that the issued by the Small Business engineering expertise and operating Administration in 13 CFR Part 121. Since experience in the senior operator or shift applicant may be competent to practice these companies are dominant in their supervisor functions, engineering"? If credit la granted for unice amas. this proposed rule does

3. Generoldescr/ption of the activity opersting experience, does this not fall within the purview of the Act.

thof would be required by the licensee experience have to be acquired after However, because there may be now or oppla,coniin order 40 complete the l

,,eg yg,g,g,g7,,p or in the future small entPiw which wiu backfit.

1 will also be interested in comments In response to Questions 4. 5 and 6 of provide licensed operators to nuclear ne 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 seeking comment as senior operator (SO) license to operate a Nvironmentalimpact-Categorical to how the regulations wiu affect them nuclear power reactor, after 14 are Ex tusloe and how the regulations may be tiered following the effective date ofi e ruh).

The NRC has determined that this or otherwise modified to impose less to have a bachelor's degree in propo.ed regulation la the type of action strmgent requirements on them while engineering, engineering technology, or embed in categorical exclusion 10 still adequately protecting the public the physical sciences from en accredited CFR 51.221c)(1).Therefore.neither an health and safety.Those smau entities university or college. Applicants with which offer comments on how the other bachelor's degrees from an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been regulat;ons 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 uld specifically discuss the considered on a case.by case basis if Paperwork Reduction Act Statement fol1 ln3 ems the utility (licensee) certifies that the i

This proposed rule does not contain a 1.The sin of their busineu ud how the applicant bas demonstrated engineering new or amended Information collection peoposed regulations would result in a expertise and high potential for the SO reoutrement subject to the Paperwork sisndicant economic burden upon them as position.no Commission does not want

____.m__________

Federal Register / Vcl. S3 No. 250 / Thursday. December 29. 1983 / Proposed Rules 52723 to prevent individuals with excellent power nuclear reactors such as meearch operators must have sufficient engineering experience. but with and test reactors. Exemptions to the one understanding of basic engineering nontechnical degrees from becoming

- supervisor per control room principles, and detailed knowledge of 80s: however, degree equivalency will r quirement, may be permitted, on a nuclear design and operation to no longer be accepted. An accredited cawby case basis, for those situations appropriately respond to situations that university or couese is defined as an -

when control rooms may be close to have not been pmvlously covered in educational institution in the United each other. Each shift supervisor, after training sessions. In addition. sos with 6tates which has been approved by a

[4 years following the effective date of degrees or shift supervisors with regional accrediting body, the rule), would need to have one or enhanced educational cmdentials will

. The proposed amendment would more of the following enhanced have smoter 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 Engineering and managerial posinons. The Commission following the effective date of the rule]

Technology (ABET): a professional believes that there will also be an would be exempt from the degrw engineerlicense 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 migrate upward into senior operator license on [4 years an Engineer.in Training (EIT) certificate plant management although this following the effective date of the rule) that indicates one has passed an improvement could be counter balanced, would be " grandfathered" by the examinsuon 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 reactors such as research and test shift supervisor.The bachelor's degree 4 Pb888'i8gPoetonsodiological-reactors.1.icensed reactor operator with the EIT would not necessarily have exposum offocility employees.

(ROs) would not be required to have a to be in a technical discipline provided There is not expected to be any degree. The propesed rule would also the person meets the state education significant change in the radiological require one year of" hot"(l.a. 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 reductionin 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 bom 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 associated with the backfit. facluding The proposed requirements of unable to operate above 20 percent the cost offocility downtime or the cost Alternative 1 would only apply 1o power Power.

ofconstruction delay.

reactor licensees indirect:y. There s.Potentio/ change in the risk to th8 One of the questions posed in the May Publicfrom the occidenfoloffl.

site would be : o modification of or addition 30,1980 ANpRM relative to AJtemative ir/cose ofrodioactwe morena

.1. concemed what the implementation to the organization,i.e. administrative and functional structure, required to it is not feasible to quanutatively and operauon coshiem posed 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. 'Itat is' because:

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

[fe'cjpnt scenarios for achieving the desired pro

1. the person to whom the 80s report e a e would not change:

b bili "d

f ste(fing level of sos with degrees were the number cf soe per shift would not

{cident as a res I of qu$'ns eh assumed. These varied from hiring

$e' totel number of operatore per shift the SO to have a bachelor's degree or individuals with degrees and passing m ould not change; the shift supervisor to have enhanced

' them through the normal utility training

e. the training requirements. written educational credentials is not known.

Programs to taking ROs and sending e nominations and opersting tests for a so The Commission believes that requiring them to college while either paying them would not chanse: and degrees for sos or enhanced at overtime rates or hiring replacement as the tasks performed by a 80 would not educational credentials for shift ROs. A utility could also implement an

'h*"8

supervisors will contribute to the goal of onsite co!!ege degree program for its However, the powsr reactor licensees hasing sos or shift supervisors who operstors. for er.smple,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 people.The range of costs of such an educe tional opportunity for their own operators and possibly open career onsite program are estimated to very employees to obtain a degree.

paths from which they may have been frorn $250.000 to $480.000 per year. The The proposed rule, under Alternative excluded in the past, The sos with cost to the utilities of Alternative 2 2, would require a separate shift degrees or shift supervisors with would be less since there would be s upervisor 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 clear that there are numerous fueled units operated by the control normalincidents While there willbe methods that can be used to implement room at all times there is fuelin any of increased training to cover accident the proposed rule with an extrerne range the units.The requirement would only conditions training alone is not of costs depending on the method apply to power reactor licensees:lt su 'licient. It is impossible to cover every adopted. It would be a utility's choice as would not apply to licensees for non-e entuality during training.The to which method to adopt, taking into

• 52724 Federal Registar / Vel. 53. No.150 / Thursdsy. December 29. 1986 / Propossd Ruhe account the various cost and personnel 4, De pote'rtiolimpoet of diffemnees under sec. leto, es Stat. Sea as anwnded H2 considerations.

in facility ty;>e. design or oge on the USC. 33o11o)).

e. Thepotentialsafetyimpact of relevancyandpmcticality of the

2. La i 55.4. a new definition is added changes in plant or opemtionc!

proposed buckfit.

In alphabetical order to read as follows-'

complexity, including the effect on other ne proposed rule on)y applies to SO proposed andexisting regulatory applicants for operation of a nuclear i 54A Elesinlitana, requirements.

power res ctor or to shift supervisors. it nere would be no changes in the does not upply to SO applicants or shift

" Accredited university or college" plant or operational complexity and supervieras for non-power nuclear means an educationalinstitution in the Lecce, no potential safety imE.d be an act related reactors such as te search and test United States which has been approved to them. However, there won

reactors, by a regional accrediting body, 1

effect on the guidance provided is ne f scility type, design or age abould Regulatory Guide 1.8. Relative to have no relevancy :o the impact or

3. In I $5.31. a now paragraph (e)la Alternettre 1. the guidance in practicality of the proposed backfit.For added to read as follows:

Regulatory Culde 1.8 allows an Alternative 1. the degree to which each applicant for a SO license with a degree utility licensee has already implemented I 95.31 How to apph.

to have only 2 years of responsible an educational program would be most power plant experience, none of which important.Those facilities which have (e) Each applicant for a senior needs to be as a reactor operator.This implemented such a program will clearly operator license to operate a nucleat would have to be revised if Alternative be less aff acted by the proposed backfit power reactor, after [4 years following s ie adopted since the proposed than wuuld those facilities that have the effect ve date of the rule) must have amendment would require a SO not. For Altemative 2. the number of a bachelor's degree in engineering, appbcant 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 other indicates that a RO applicant must have room on their site would be least bachelor's degrees from an eccredited a minimum of 3 years of power plant affected by the proposed rule.

Institution, or from a foreign college or erprence of which at least t year shall

g. Whether theproposedbacAf! tis university, will be considered on a case.

be nuclear power experience.Ris interim orfinaland,ifinterim. the by case basis if the reactor plant would have to be revised since it is

/ justification for impos/rgr the proposed licensee certifies that the applicant has inconsistent with the proposed backfit on an intarim 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 degme effective, would be is 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-Requirements for Senlo' effective date of the rule). each would have to be meised to indicate Operators applicant for a senior operator license that a bachelor's degree is the minimum List of Subjecta in la CFR Part 55 must have at least three years of educational requirement for a 80 p[ rating experience at a nuclear power o

candidate rather than a high school Manpower training programs. Nuclear

t. of which one year's experience

. diploma. Relative to Alternative 2.

power plants and reactors, Penalty, must be as a licensed control room current guidance in Regulatory Calde Reporting and recordkeeping operator for a nuclear power reactor 1.8, Revision 2, April 1967, requirements.

• Qualification and Training of Personnel For the reasons set out in the operating at greater than twenty percent pewer. At lesst 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, at the plant for which the applicant diploma.This would have to be revised.

the Energy Reorganization Act of1Er74.

seeks the license. An authorized if Alternath e 2 is adopted, to reflect the as amended, and 5 USC. 553. the NRC representative of the facility licensee new educational credentials and is proposing to adopt the following will verify that the requirements of this experience required to become a shift amendments to 10 CFR Part 55.

paragraph have been met as a part of supervisor (1 e 3 years experience with PART 55-OPERATORS' LICENSES certifying the applicant's qualifications 1 year as a RO).

pursuant to paragraph (a)(4) of this

7. The estimatedreJource burden in 1.The authority citation for Part 55 section. Any person holding a senior theNRCassoc/ated with theproposed continues to read as follows:

operator license on [4 yes's following r

bocAfit and the crollab//ityofsuch Authority Sece 107.161.182. 68 Stat. 939, ihr effective date of the rule]is exempt 948.953.as amended. ecc. 234,83 Sist. 444. es from the re uirement to have a

1. '8N#8' It is anticipated that there will be amerided (42 U.s C. 2137. 2201. 2232,22a2);

bachelor's egree, relativ61y minor Impact on NRC staff secs. 201 u emended. 202, se Stat.1242. as (t) For each applicant from a facility resources as a result ofimplementing amended. 1244 (42 U.S C. 5841. 58421 that has not completed preoperational the proposed rule.For Alternative 1.

Sections 55 41. 55 43. 55 45. and 55.59 also testing and an initial startup test there may be some increese in the 1:sved under uc. 306. Pub. L ah425. 96 Sist.

program as described in it: Final Safety number of applications to process and 2262 (42 U.S C.10226). Secuon 5541 also Ar.alysis Report as amended and tests to administer, because of the inued under seca 186.187. 68 Stal 955 (42 approved by the Commission, and has attec1 pts of current ROs to become sos fe p' s M uc. 223. 6a Sm 958. u not yet been licensed to operate at prior to the cut.off date, but this should einended (42 U.S C. 2273). ll 55.3. 5521, power, the Commission may approve not cause a significant impact on the 55 49. and 55 53 are issued under sec.1811. 68 alternatives that provide experienca NRC staff. No new resourca Stat 949. es amended (42 U.S C. 22ai[il): and equivalent to operation at twenty requirements are expected, il $5 9. 5523,5525. and 85.53(f) are issued percent power.

v

~

~

Federal Register / Vol. 53. No. 250 / Thursday. December 29, 1988 / Proposed Rules 52725 (2) For ea'ch applicant from a facility and (cl. so 44. so es, so es, so 54. and so.ao(el plant that has not completed that has (i) completed preoperational are inued under sec. telb. ee Stat. osa. as preoperational testing and an initial testing as described in its Final Safety amended (42 U.S.C 2aot(b)); il 80.to(b) and startup test program as described in its Ij",80j, I','"'d u Final Safety Analysis Report, as u es Analysis Report. as amended and g ,d (42 approved by the Commission. and (ii)is Il 50 9. 80.56(el. 80.Se(b). 80.r0. 80.71. 80.72, amended and approved by the ,l in en extended shutdown which so.73, and 50.7s are luued under sec. telo, se Commission, and has not yet been precludes operation at greater than Stat. 960, as amended (42 U.S.C 2201(o)). licensed to operate at power, the twenty percent power, the Commission 2.In 5 50.54 paragra h (m)(3)is Commissi n may approve alternatives that provide experience equivalent to may process the application and may removed and the intr uctory text to administer the wntten examination and operating test required by ll 55.43 and paragreph (a)(2) and paragraph oPeadon at twenty pecent pown. 65.45 of this part, but may not issue the (m)(2)(ii) are revised, to read as follows: Dated at Rockville Maryland this 23rd day license until the required evidence of I 50.54 Const6 ens of toenana, of December.19es, i operation at greater than twenty percent For the Nuclear Regulatory Comaelesion. power is supplied. (m) * *

• John C Hoyle, Alternative 3-Requirements for (2) Notwithstanding any other ActigSecretaryforthe commission.

Supervisors provisions of this section. licensees of (FR Doc. 29993 Filed 12-26.# 8.45 arn) IJet of Subjectsin to CFR Partis [,"3 ,",q en Antitrust. Classified information. Fire (1) * *

• hrotection. Incorporation by reference, (ii)(A) For single unit sites or multiple tergovernmental relations. Nuclear unit sites with one control room, the DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATK)N power plants and reactors, penalty, licensee shall have at its site a person Federal Atlation Administration Radiation protection. Reactor siting holding a senior operator license for all criteria. Reporting and recordkeeping fueled units at the site who is assigned 14 CFR Part 78 requirements.

responsibility for overall plant operation For the reasons set out in the at all times there is fuelin any unit. (Airspace Doaket No.04-AEA4) preamble and under the authority of the (B) For multiple unit sites with two or Atomic Energy Art of 1954, as amended, more control rooms, the licensee shall Proposed Alteratiert of Restricted the Energy Reorganization Act of1974, have at its site a person for each control Area R 4601 Fort A.P. Hui, VA as amended, and 5 U.S.C 553, the NRC room who:bolds a senior operator Acescv: Federal Aviation is proposing to adopt the following license for all fueled units operated by amendments to 10 CFR part 50. the control room: and la responsible for Administradon RAA), M. overall operation of these units at all Acvicoc Notice of proposed rulemaking. PART 50-DOMESTIC UCENSING OF timea there is fuelin any of them. oussesAny: la notice proposes to alter PRODUCTION AND UTIUZATWN Exemptions may be considered on a the boundaries and change the FACluTIES cue by case basis taking into account R cted Area 1.The authority citation for part 50 the physicallocation of the control f 'y y continues to read as follows: 70 u ye s foH w ng b Department of the Army has requested Authority: Seca.102. los.104.105.161.142, effective date of the rule).each 'reon an enlargement of R-em to P 954. 955,956, se amended, sec. 234. 83 Stat. described in paregrsphs (m)(2)(ii)(A) accommodate additional training 1s3.1a6.1a0. 8e Stat 936. 937. sm esa, s53, i 12H. as amended (42 USC 22n 2133. 2134. and (m)(2)(ii)(B) of this sectiots must requirements. In addjtion, the proposed 2135, 2201. 2232, 2233, 2236. 2239. 2282); seca. have one or more of the following action would revise the assigned 201, s e a mended. 202, 20s, se Sist 1242. es educational credentials: A bachelor's

1. ""gji"I 'I'"'I' DATES: Comments must be received on amended.1244.12a6 (42 USC as41. 6642.

degree from a program accredited by the sa46). Accreditation Board for Engineering and or before February 13, tees. Section E7 also leeued under Pub.1.85-Technolo (ABET):a professional ADontassa: Send commenta on the ~ engineer cense issue by a state .. proposalin triplicate to: Director,FAA. ct a 10 also der es .1a5. es Stat s36. eG5. as amended (42 USC 2131. government; or, a bachelor's degree and Eastern Region, Attention: Manager. Air 2235); pc.102. Pub.1. 91-190. s3 Stat a53 (42 an Engineer.in Training (EIT) certificate Trame Division, Docket No. 08-AEA4. U S C 4332). Sections 50.23, So st 255, and that indicates one has passed an Federal Aviation Administration.IFK So.56 eleo issued under sec.185,es Stat 955 examination administered by a state or International Airport.Th's Fitzgerald (42 U.S C. 22351. Sectione so.33a. no 55e end other recognlied authority. Federal Building. Jamaica, NY 11430 Appendia Q also issued under sec.102. Pub. (D) Except as noted below, after [4 he officialdocket may be examined 1C %,,. years following the effective date of the in the Rules Docket, weekdays, except ~1 a3 Sta a53 2 , g, occ 2nt, se Stat.1245 (42 USC 5H4) rula), each person described in Fedetal holidays, between 8:30 a.m. and Sectione 50.58. 80 91, and so.s2 also tesued paragraphs (m)(2)(ii)(A) and (m)(2)(li)(B) 5:00 p.m. De FAA Rules Docket is under Pub I. 97-415. 90 Stat. 2073 (42 U1C of this section must have at least three located in the Omce of the Chief 2239) Section 27e eleo leeued under sec. years of operating experience at a Counsel, Room 916,800 Independence 122. as Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C 2152) Sectione nuclear power plant. of which one year's Avenue. SW., Washington, DC. 50 8040 81 also issued under sec 144, es Stat. experience must be ae a licensed control Aninformal docket may also be e54. as amended 42 USC 22M) Section room operator for a nuclear power examined during normal business hours reactor operating at greater than twenty at the omce of the Regions.1 Air Trame e en (42U.S 13e pen loved under sec.187. ee Stat es5 l42 U S C Percent power. At least o!x months of Division. the nuclear power plant experience must posausrfwan swoneaArioet costf act. 2237). For the purposee of sec. 223 as Stat.ess, es be at the plant for which the person has paul Gallant, Altspace Branch (ATO-emendea it Vic. 2273); 1130.1o(4 (b). responsibility. For each person at a 240). Altspace. Rules and Aeronautical

W.' March 22, 1989 The Honorable Fred Upton United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Upton:

Your constituent, Mr. Kenneth R.' Baker, 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 l 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 infonnation. 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 l 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 a bachelor's degree from a program accredited by the Accreditation Board are: for Engineering and Technology; a professional engineer license issued by a I 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 j i expertise and operating experience in the shift supervisor position. If the first alternative were selected for final promulgation, it would become i effective four years later. But, all current e ior reactor operators who hold a valid, license on the date four years after W, rule promulgation would be for awations

Enclosure:

Federal Register notice i SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

• DISTRIBUTION ON LAST PAGE j

Offe: RDB:DRA:RES DRJ):JQ Name: *JTelford:jp ZR6sTtlo I j Date: 3/ /89 9' ) Offe: DRA:RES DD/ RI-5 D: ED) OCA'M/ 'Hame: BMorrisI s '/ kjord VSjte lo JBraaburnef l p Date: 3/p/89. 3/lJB9 3/M9 3/ 89 3/W/89 j OFFICIAL RECOR COPY j j E- - r

v

1. COMMITTtEl 1807 LONowcaTM 0*tsCE gouino 8

e WASMtNGTON, DC 2oS tl tiO2) 12M Foi PulluC WOCES ANO TRANSPORTATION SMALL BUSINESS 229 wts,30Tu STntti P O 90X 1917 SELECT COMMITTEE ON HUNGER

• /

0 4442 1917 SOCIAL SECURITY CAUCUS 0 CONGRES$10NAL TRAVEL AND ,,,g g ,,g y 4,o,3 house of Representatibed l toua'5= c^ucu8 i.ia nu' 2 CONGRES$10NAL GREAT LAKES CAUCUS 421 Mam stattT FRED UPTON

orou,

,aan BIPARTISAN APPROPRIATIONS TASK FORCE 4TN DistalCT, MICHIGAN de tm 882 19H I '*"c""^" LTNNs sACNS ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT February 28, 1989 ot o'0,*,'A,'i',',',,,a. l \\ l l ) Mr. John C. Bradburne Jr. Director of Congressional Affairs Nuclear Regulatory Commission j One White Flint North Building 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

Dear Mr. Bradburne,

The enclosed is of concern to one of my constituents, Mr. Kenneth Baker of Bridgman, Michigan. I would appreciate it if you would read this letter carefully and respond to my constituent's concerns. Please address your response to me at my l Washington office. l If I can provide any further information in this matter, j please contact Henry Plaster of my staff at (202) 225-3761. Very truly yours, / i ,/ 1 l Fred Upton I Member of Congress l l l FSU:hh l Enclosure oonwghg PLEASE REPLY TO WASHINGTON OFFICE UNLESS INDICATED: O ST. JOSEPH O HOLLAND D THREE RIVERS _A

.,<.......o m 00A 4bb Cr==n 5 :'x06 Sid a 0.bbi and 2NCIANA .MIC"AIGilN PCWM The Honorable Frederick Upton 1713 Longworth Washington DC 20515 February 9, 1989 RE: United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Proposed Rule on Education and Experience Requirements for Senior Reactor Operators at Nuclear Power Plants Recognizing that our elected officials can most effectively serve with knowledgeable input from their constituents, I am compelled to write you regarding a currently pending Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposal. In the FEDERAL REGISTER (Volume 53, No. 250), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has published a proposed rule regarding education and experience requirements for Senior Reactor Operators which would see a Bachelors Degree in Engineering or Engineering Technology from accredited universities as a prerequisite for obtaining a Senior Reactor Operator License. The nuclear industry, NRC advisory groups -- and the Commission itself -- have taken the position that this rule is unnecessary, and in fact would represent a demoralizing influence on present Reactor Operators. It would, additionally, have a negative safety impact; yet, the NRC continues to press forward by publishing a proposal with the intent of implementation. The NRC's apparent purpose in enacting this ruling would be to establish a career path for a Reactor Operator from the Control Room to the Board Room. Based upon over 25 years' personal experience in the nuclear industry, I feel they are missing an important aspect of what safe nuclear operation is based upon. A lesson learned from the Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl events is that nuclear safety relies very heavily on thoroughly trained, well motivated, and highly experienced personnel conducting day-to-day, minute-to-minute operation of the Control Rooms. A person using a Control Room position as l a stepping stone to a better job does not provide this. It is my belief that to become a Senior Reactor Operator in the Control Room requires three to five years of experience after obtaining the license. Additionally, if this is set up as a stepping stone position, the " Peter Principle" will bO(.) O E O q

4 The Honorable Frederick Upton February 9, 1989 Page 2 undoubtedly ensure that those with less-than-needed competence will be stagnated in the Control Room, filling these critical positions with people who have reached their level of incompetence. The Senior Reactor Operator position should be made the most desirable position in the utility, structured so that the responsibility and challenge would r attract the best people to strive for the position, and not 1 simply to use it as a line of career progression. An analogy could be drawn regarding airline pilots: Most strive to sit in the Pilot's seat,.and those who are dedicated to airline safety do not take a pilot's job to move on to bigger and better things in the airline industry; they want the challenge of safely and efficiently flying an airplane. They do not approach the job as one where all they have to do is keep their nose clean for a short period of time and then proceed on up the corporate ladder. I am convinced that I speak for the majority of nuclear industry professionals when I state my conviction that a degree requirement for Senior Reactor Operator licensees is not only unnecessary, but in fact may impede the effective execution of duties and responsibilities essential to the efficient and safe operation of a nuclear generating facility. I urge you to consider that the proposed NRC regulations are not in the best interests of the Country, or of the nuclear industry, and trust that a thorough review of the matter will lead you to a conclusion which coincides with my and my colleagues' viewpoints regarding the issue. Kenneth R. Baker Operations Superintendent KRB/pk - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _}}