Direct (or Instant) RO Question

[shipoffools]

I've been mostly lurking on the site for awhile now, and have a pretty good understanding of the NLO-RO-SRO career path available in OPS.  I also understand that the "Direct" SRO route is available for those with certain backgrounds. 

But one thing I haven't seen is an explanation as to why there is no "Direct" RO route available in OPS.  I'm sure there are good reasons, but from an outsider's perspective, it seems logical that if "X" qualifies an individual for NLO, and "Z" qualifies a person for "Instant SRO," then there would be some intermediate level of qualification "Y" that would be satisfactory for becoming an "Instant RO." 

And I use the term "qualified" loosely - I understand that as part of the Broadzillian ideology, only a precious few are initially qualified for more than janitor.  

[Bleyse]

Well, it's not that it hasn't been considered, at least at my plant.  I think the big hang up with it there is that RO is a trades and labor (i.e.: Union) position.

[Nuclear NASCAR]

Naturally there's a formula for it but the Guidelines for Initial Training and Qualification of
Licensed Operators call for 36 months of power plant experience prior to being eligible to be an RO.

[co60slr]

I've been mostly lurking on the site for awhile now, and have a pretty good understanding of the NLO-RO-SRO career path available in OPS.  I also understand that the "Direct" SRO route is available for those with certain backgrounds. 

But one thing I haven't seen is an explanation as to why there is no "Direct" RO route available in OPS.  I'm sure there are good reasons, but from an outsider's perspective, it seems logical that if "X" qualifies an individual for NLO, and "Z" qualifies a person for "Instant SRO," then there would be some intermediate level of qualification "Y" that would be satisfactory for becoming an "Instant RO." 

That would seem logical; however, Direct RO is not allowed by the regulations. 
Reference:  http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1021/sr1021r9.pdf
ES-202, Page 9 of 13.  However, NUREG 1021 should be a mandatory reading assignment for anyone considering an operator licensing career move.

[shipoffools]

Reference:  http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1021/sr1021r9.pdf
ES-202, Page 9 of 13.  However, NUREG 1021 should be a mandatory reading assignment for anyone considering an operator licensing career move.

Thanks for the info!!

[Roll Tide]

That would seem logical; however, Direct RO is not allowed by the regulations. 
Reference:  http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1021/sr1021r9.pdf
ES-202, Page 9 of 13.  However, NUREG 1021 should be a mandatory reading assignment for anyone considering an operator licensing career move.

There is not an NRC exemption for Direct RO. But utilities can still implement a hire directly into a program which will eventually land you in license class as an RO candidate, without doing a "real job" beforehand.

Yes, there are also bargaining agreements that have to be met (in some manner).

[shipoffools]

Apparently there are provisions in the upcoming revision of ACAD to take effect January 2011 that will include a flowpath for direct RO.  Below is a link for an unfinished draft that I came across. 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/op-licensing-files/msum-11232009.pdf

I've been unable to find ACAD 09-001 that this draft version is intended to replace.  If anyone has a link or can point me in the right direction on where I could find this document, I'd really appreciate it.  I'm specifically interested in how the or equivalent in "BS degree or equivalent" is currently defined.  Thanks.

[Longhornfan]

At Southern Co I just started my 6 month on-shift time with 7 other new hires...all ex navy.  Three of us are direct SRO and the other 4 are bargaining unit direct RO.  As far as I have been able to find out this is the first class that they have done that with but I am not positive on that.  I know we are all in the same licensing class along with 5 engineers from the plant, 1 instructor, and an unknown number of system operators.  I am not sure what criteria they used/are using to determine which path you are hired on.  If I figure it out I will let you know.

[Benwah033]

Apparently there are provisions in the upcoming revision of ACAD to take effect January 2011 that will include a flowpath for direct RO.  Below is a link for an unfinished draft that I came across. 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/op-licensing-files/msum-11232009.pdf

I've been unable to find ACAD 09-001 that this draft version is intended to replace.  If anyone has a link or can point me in the right direction on where I could find this document, I'd really appreciate it.  I'm specifically interested in how the or equivalent in "BS degree or equivalent" is currently defined.  Thanks.

January 1 2011, ACAD 09-001 is no longer a valid document, and is superseded by ACAD 10-001. So, if you're looking at getting into a class, or are in a class that will start after January 1st, ACAD 09-001 will not do you any good.

The ACAD documents are published by INPO (NANT), and I don't believe they are easily available to the general public, at least I haven't been able to find them outside of my Utility.

I may be mistaken, but I believe that the wording is "BS Degree in Engineering or Equivalent," which can be something like a Physics, Chemistry, etc - a technical BS degree (as opposed to a BA or accounting/management degree etc.) 

[Stngray]

An SRO is a manager/supervisor. RO's and AO's are operators. Even so we still have very few successful instant SRO's, because a good supervisor is usually a former operator. It seems that the instants we have that are successful stick to this mold. We are pushing the AO's to become RO's as soon as they are qualified, and it has already created problems. Not that we have many options though. I still think that we will never see an "instant" RO on my site, no matter how desperate we are for licenses, or the changes to the regs. RO's really run the minute to minute ops, and an instant in this position is a liability. Again, this is specific to my experience and my site.

[DDMurray]

I do not disagree with your statement, but I have to ask:  If we are really trying to make up for natural attrition due to retirements and the like and man up new plants, where are the bodies going to come from?  I've been at my plant for 18 months and still have 11 months until the NRC exam.  In my limited time in civilian nuclear power, it's obvious to me that it's hard to get people to go from NLO to RO which makes it hard to go RO to SRO.  Maybe if there was more money in it.  Hmmmm.   Sounds similar to the Navy:  throwing money at the problem isn't the answer. 

[shipoffools]

An SRO is a manager/supervisor. RO's and AO's are operators. Even so we still have very few successful instant SRO's, because a good supervisor is usually a former operator. It seems that the instants we have that are successful stick to this mold. We are pushing the AO's to become RO's as soon as they are qualified, and it has already created problems. Not that we have many options though. I still think that we will never see an "instant" RO on my site, no matter how desperate we are for licenses, or the changes to the regs. RO's really run the minute to minute ops, and an instant in this position is a liability. Again, this is specific to my experience and my site.

There's been plenty of debate in other threads to the relative success of instant SRO v. RO upgrades.  Without getting into that argument, I go back to the original post:  If the guidelines allow for a route to direct SRO, doesn't it logically follow that there would be a similar provision for direct RO?  The fact that SRO's are supervisors/management would only seem to reinforce the argument for direct RO.  If an individual meets a baseline eligibility requirement for the management position, it would only make sense that the individual would be eligible to also work in a "subordinate" position.  Don't let me come across as questioning whether this would be implemented at your site, or your site's attitude toward direct SRO or RO - I'm just looking in the broad sense.  But if having an instant in the RO chair is truly a liability, I question how the industry would even have entertained the idea of an instant SRO much less put it into practice. If instant RO is a liability surely instant SRO is a bigger liability, right?  And let me throw out the disclaimer that I'm not in the industry and only can speak from a semi-informed outsider's view.  But JustinHEMI is an insider and I bet he has an opinion!!!

[MMM]

There's been plenty of debate in other threads to the relative success of instant SRO v. RO upgrades.  Without getting into that argument, I go back to the original post:  If the guidelines allow for a route to direct SRO, doesn't it logically follow that there would be a similar provision for direct RO?  The fact that SRO's are supervisors/management would only seem to reinforce the argument for direct RO.  If an individual meets a baseline eligibility requirement for the management position, it would only make sense that the individual would be eligible to also work in a "subordinate" position.  Don't let me come across as questioning whether this would be implemented at your site, or your site's attitude toward direct SRO or RO - I'm just looking in the broad sense.  But if having an instant in the RO chair is truly a liability, I question how the industry would even have entertained the idea of an instant SRO much less put it into practice. If instant RO is a liability surely instant SRO is a bigger liability, right?  And let me throw out the disclaimer that I'm not in the industry and only can speak from a semi-informed outsider's view.  But JustinHEMI is an insider and I bet he has an opinion!!!

I would argue that it's similar to how things are in the navy. You have an enlisted guy who goes up through the ranks and all the quals, eventually making it to their SIR qual (similar to going NLO to RO), and the to PPWS/EWS (up to SRO). Then you have the guy straight out of college who goes straight to PPWO/EOOW (direct SRO), but is still expected to have the same plant knowledge as everybody else combined, but no real operational experience. The only way for me, as an enlisted, to go direct RO, is to be previously qualified SIR. Which is better? It depends on the person. In general, the enlisted guys do a great job as PPWS because we have 2 years of qualifying and then at least another year of just standing watch before we start on PPWS, so we can make more informed decisions about what's going on with limited information. The PPWO's job is to simply supervise the plant and come up with a plan for how to deal with whatever comes up, as he has little to no operational experience, it relies on others to give him good information. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the guy going directly to controlling the reactor with no experience than the guy supervising operations. DISCLAIMER: I have no civilian experience. Just thought I should throw that out there.

[co60slr]

I would argue that it's similar to how things are in the navy. You have an enlisted guy who goes up through the ranks and all the quals, eventually making it to their SIR qual (similar to going NLO to RO), and the to PPWS/EWS (up to SRO). Then you have the guy straight out of college who goes straight to PPWO/EOOW (direct SRO), but is still expected to have the same plant knowledge as everybody else combined, but no real operational experience. The only way for me, as an enlisted, to go direct RO, is to be previously qualified SIR.

There is no EWS/PPWS equivalent really in Commercial.  Technically, all the NLOs report to the RO.  The RO briefs jobs, evolutions, directs NLO actions, valve manipulations, etc.   All the while he/she is watching the Reactor Power meter and "minding his/her panel".  Take some of the EOOW responsibility and give it to the RO.  Take the EWS, give it to the RO.  You then have a closer comparison to Navy RO and Commercial Control Room Operator (CRO).  Take the Throttleman and Electrical Operator out and place a 2nd CRO (bathroom breaks, other control room functions, etc) in the Control Room.

So what does the SRO do then if the two CROs are running around the Control Room giving orders?  Similar to EOOW oversight but also EDO and SDO duties in port (since there's always some maintenance going on to have tagouts approved, work approved, etc).   Who decides if the work is compatible with plant conditions?  Take some of what your Engineering Officer and/or Prototype Shift Engineer do and give that to the SRO. 

What happens when the SRO comes up against a "RPM Requirement"?  There is no asking the squadron, type commander, KAPL, NR, etc for technical deviation.  If you don't meet a Technical Specification (see other threads on that ominous subject), and the requirement is to shutdown/cooldown...then guess what:  you shutdown/cooldown.  Who is responsible for that decision?  The person holding the SRO License on watch ultimately.   Violate the rules and who gets in trouble?  No...not your "commanding officer".   

Oh, and yes, the SRO can sit as the CRO if needed.  Part of the SRO qualification is also CRO qualification.

There are some very interesting and noteworthy differences that in my opinion we former NNPP guys/gals do not adequately articulate on this Forum for the Navy:Getting Out threads.  However, debating commercial regulations is somewhat of a "red herring".   It is what it is.  However, note that some utilities do NOT (I repeat) do NOT hire Instant SROs!  Likewise, if allowed, some would use the direct RO allowance, and maybe others would not.  So, regardless of the regulation at hand...MMM is absolutely correct: it comes down to the individual and the plant...not the "sea lawyering" of what we think is logical in the CFRs and NUREGs. 

Co60

[co60slr]

ergo the concept of "licensed operator",....

if you can navigate the journey from "fries with that sir?" to licensed operator regardless of your background,....you be da man!!!

I've been told that "the" TMI SRO has the longest Congressional transcript in history.  Perhaps someone can validate that via an electronic library of congress search (http://thomas.loc.gov/).  Regardless, case in point.

[ranger2]

I've been told that "the" TMI SRO has the longest Congressional transcript in history.  Perhaps someone can validate that via an electronic library of congress search (http://thomas.loc.gov/).  Regardless, case in point.

Close...according to INPO, it was the TMR RO that secured the RCPs. He still occasionally gets called to testify 30+ years later.

[thenuttyneutron]

Close...according to INPO, it was the TMR RO that secured the RCPs. He still occasionally gets called to testify 30+ years later.

The guy was "just a bit" too late in stopping those RCP when they lost SCM.  Is he the same guy that blocked and stopped the ECCS?

[MMM]

Co60,
Thanks for correcting me. I've been able to learn a little about each of the jobs (NLO, RO, SRO) from guys who've gotten out over the past few years, but I had no idea the exent of the authority/responsibility of the SRO.

[co60slr]

Co60,
Thanks for correcting me. I've been able to learn a little about each of the jobs (NLO, RO, SRO) from guys who've gotten out over the past few years, but I had no idea the exent of the authority/responsibility of the SRO.

Not correcting...just adding to the thread.  I didn't fully understand either and still learning now.