ML20044D474

Final Rule 10CFR50 & 52, Training & Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel

ML20044D474
Person / Time
Issue date:	04/20/1993
From:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:
Shared Package
ML20044D471	List: ML20044D470 ML20044D474
References
FRN-57FR00537, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52 CCS, NUDOCS 9305190209
Download: ML20044D474 (37)

Text

.

o

[7590-01-P]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 RIN 3150 - AD80 1

i Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

?

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its reaulations to require each applicant for and each holder of a license to operate a nuclear power plant to establish, implement, and maintain a training program for nuclear power plant personnel based on a systems approach to training (SAT).

The training program will provide qualified personnel to operate and I

maintain the nuclear power plant in a safe manner in all modes of operation.

I This action is being taken to meet the directives of Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

l

\\

EFFECTIVE DATE:

[30 days following publication]

ADDRESSES:

Copies of all referenced NRC documents are available for public j

inspection and copying for a fee at the NRC Public Document Roo~

2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of NUREG l

docurents may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, l

l 9305190209 930421 PDR PR 50 57FROO537 PDR

l l

i U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060, or by witing to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082.

Copies are also available from l

the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, l

Springfield, VA 22161.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Rajender Auluck, P.E., Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone:

(301) 492-3794 or Mary Ann Biamonte, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, telephone:

(301) 504-1073, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

l l

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

t i

In Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA),

l Pub. L.97-425, the NRC was " directed to promulgate regulations, or other i

appropriate Commission regulatory guidance for the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear power plant operators, supervisors, technicians and other operating personnel.

Such regulations or guidance shall establish...

i instructional requirements for civilian nuclear power plant licensee personnel training programs."

In order to meet this directive, on March 20, 1985, the Commission published a Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel. (50 FR 11147). The policy statement endorsed a I

2

- =,

training accreditation program managed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO).

It encompassed the elements of effective performance-based training and provided the basis to ensure that personnel have qualifications commensurate with the performance requirements of their jobs.

i In addition to endorsing the INP0-managed training accreditation l

program, the 1985 Policy Statement also recognized the INP0-managed accreditation of utility training programs for the following categories of I

nuclear power plant personnel:

(1)

Non-licensed operator.

i (2)

Control room operator.

l 6

(3)

Senior control room operator / shift supervisor.

(4)

Shift technical advisor.

i (5)

Instrument and control technician.

[

(6)

Electrical maintenance personnel.

i i

(7)

Mechanical maintenance personnel.

t i

i (8)

Radiological protection technician.

(9)

Chemistry technician.

l i

(10) On-site technical staff and managers.

While issuing the policy statement, the Commission decided to defer r

rulemaking in this area for a minimum of 2 years in order to allow the i

j industry to continue its' initiatives to upgrade training programs through the j

l r

INP0-managed training accreditation program.

Following issuance of the policy i

statement, the NRC evaluated the INP0-managed training accreditation program

{

f over a 2-year period and concluded that it was an effective program.

On 1

November 18, 1988 (53 FR 466073), the NRC published an amended policy i

i statement in order to:

l 5

l 3

I h

t

?

I

,c

(1) Provide additional information regarding the NRC's experience with industry accreditation, I

P i

(2) Change the policy regarding enforcement to eliminate discretion in inspection and enforcement in the areas covered by the 1985 Policy Statement, and l

(3) Reflect current Commission and industry guidance.

i L

The NRC continues to perform inspections at different utilities to ensure that

+

these training programs remain effective.

U.S. Court of Appeals Decision -

l On April 17, 1990, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of i

Columbia Circuit concluded that the Commission's Policy Statement did not meet the intent of the Congrassional directive to create mandatory requirements for personnel training, rograms at civilian nuclear power plants.

The Court j

remanded the issue back to the NRC for action consistent with the Court's

'j findings.

See, Public Citizen v. NRC, 901 F.2d 147 (D.C. Cir.1990). The l

Commission requested a rehearing of the decision by the full court, which was denied on June 19, 1990. On November 26, 1990, the Supreme Court denied certiorari on petition by the Nuclear Utility Management and Resource Council.

See, Nuclear Manaaement and Resources Council. Inc. v. Public Citizen 111 S. Ct. 536 (1990).

4 j

-,c-

i i

i Actions Taken in Response to the Court Decision i

In response to the court decision, the NRC developed the proposed rule that would amend 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52, entitled " Training and Qualification of Nuclear Plant Personnel." The proposed rule was published in the Federal i

Register on January 7, 1992 (57 FR 537).

The amendments would require that

(

each applicant for and each holder of a license to operate a nuclear. power j

i plant establish, implement, and maintain a training program for nuclear power t

plant personnel that provides qualified personnel to operate and maintain the i

facility in a safe manner in all modes of operation. The proposed rule met the directives contained in Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), Pub. L.97-425, as interpreted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, that mandatory requirements be established

{

for the training and qualification of personnel at civilian nuclear power plants.

The proposed rule would require training programs that are derived from l

a systematic analysis of job performance requirements that can include both r

site-specific and industry-wide experiences.

Current industry training

.I programs have been developed consistent with this approach.

Based on f

I monitoring industry training programs since the 1985 Policy Statement went

[

into effect, the NRC has concluded that these programs have been generally

(

I effective in ensuring that personnel have qualifications commensurate'with the performance requirements of their.iobs.

s 5

1 4

I I

I

I Summary and Analysis of Public Comments i

The comment period for the proposed rule expired March 7, 1992.

Public comment letters received on the proposed rule are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room.

Comments were received from 30 individuals and corporate entities, virtually k

all of whom are directly involved in the nuclear power industry. Many of the letters contained similar comments and have been grouped together and l

addressed as a single issue.

All comments have been grouped into eight broad issues.

For each broad issue, the NRC has included a summary of the comments received and an analysis and response to those comments.

1.

Responsibility for Trainina and Acceptability of Third-Party f

Trainina-Accreditation Proarams.

l Comment.

Several commenters indicated that the NRC should clarify who under the proposed requirements will have responsibility for training contractor personnel.

Given the proposed rule's requirement that training f

programs be based on a systems approach to training, they indicated that the i

NRC should clarify its intention regarding the acceptability of licensees i

relying on third-party training programs other than INP0-managed training l

accreditation-certification programs in evaluating the training needs and qualifications of personnel.

The Radiation Protection Association's program i

of registration-certification of Health Physics Technicians was cited as an 3

example of an other than INP0-managed training accreditation-certification program that the Commission should explicitly endorse.

Commenters also i

6

I indicated that the NRC should clarify that if the evaluation of personnel does not indicate that additional training is needed (i.e., they are already I

qualified), then additional training is not required.

Finally, commenters t

questioned whether the NRC has developed acceptance criteria for licensees to use in determining the acceptability of vendor-developed and other third-party -

training programs, and if the NRC anticipated deriving such criteria from NUREG-1220.

t Resoonse. The intent of the rule is to ensure that nuclear power plant i

personnel have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform their j

assigned jobs competently; i.e., they are qualified to independeatly perform

)

t specific activities. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each licensee and applicant to ensure that personnel specified by the rule, regardless of whether they are employees or contractors, are qualified.

i The requirement that each licensee or applicant develop, implement, and l

maintain a SAT-based training program is applicable only to licensee l

l personnel, not contractors, and establishes a process that provides a high-f I

degree of assurance that personnel will be-qualified to perform their assigned I

duties.

This assurance arises from the five major elements of the SAT l

process:

1)' analysis of job performance requirements and training needs; l

l

2) derivation of learning objectives; 3) design and implementation of the j

training programs; 4) trainee evaluation; and 5) program evaluation and i

revision.

Training is only required when a comparison of job performance requirements for tasks being assigned and the skills and knowledge of a specific person indicate a training need.

Third-party (including vendor-developed) training programs, although not specifically endorsed by the NRC, 7

l

i i

are acceptable provided that the licensee has evaluated the programs to ensure that they will result in proper qualification. Because the acceptability of vendor-developed programs will vary based on individual facility needs, the

~

f1RC is not providing specific acceptance criteria.

Licensees should evaluate vendor-developed training programs against the facility's job and task analysis results to ensure that the vendor programs will meet the licensee's specific qualification requirements.

i 2.

Appropriateness of SAT-based Trainino, i

Comment. tiumerous commenters questioned the appropriateness of requiring SAT-based training. At the most basic level was a concern that the f4RC has not placed sufficient emphasis on the fact that the required SAT-based training is not intended to be a simple " cookbook" approach and that personnel should be encouraged to acquire additional knowledge, training, and academic instruction to give them a deeper understanding of the technical principles

[

underlying their training. A more widely held concern was that the proposed rule could be construed as requiring additional rigorous job and task t

analysis, particularly since f4RC Inspection Procedure 41500 is more I

restrictive in this area than the current requirements for If4PO-managed training accreditation. These commenters noted that the job and task analysis is not necessarily appropriate or sufficient for all of the types of personnel covered by tne rule. They requested that the f4RC explicitly acknowledge that varying degrees of rigor in the performance of job and task analysis are appropriate for differing types of positions, as are analyses completed through cooperative generic industry efforts.

Specifically, it was 8

l

~

i recommended that training programs affecting the Shift Supervisor, Shift l

Technical Advisor, and Technical Staff and Managers be allowed and encouraged to rely on additional bases for determining training needs and that inspection Prccedure 41500 and NUREG-1220, " Training Review Criteria and Procedures," be revised to make them fully consistent with current INP0 guidance.

Finally, one commenter noted that SAT-based training is inconsistent with the requirements in 10 CrR Part 55 for licensed operators and requested that the NRC explain why it has determined that only SAT-based training is acceptable, j

Response.

The Commission shares the concern that SAT-based training not be treated in a " cookbook" manner, it is not the intent of the NRC that the industry simply approach the SAT-based program in a " cookbook" manner, since the NRC does not intend to discourage licensees from imposing additional requirements above those developed from the SAT-based training program.

The decision to require SAT-based training programs reflects both the industry's success with this approach and the fact that the process has the advantage of incorporating ongoing review and revision of the program to reflect changing needs.

Additional rigorous job and task analysis will not be required for any l

of the positions listed in this rule. The NRC has monitored and evaluated the i

development and implementation of the current industry programs. The NRC l

believes that the job, task, and needs analyses underlying the currently accredited programs are adequate, as'are the criteria that are used in determining the acceptability of programs for future accreditation.

In order to clarify its position that additional job.and task analyses are not being 9

I

,I e

h required, the NRC has revised Insp.ection Procedure 41500 and NUREG-1220 to make them consistent with this regulation.

The NRC recognizes that 10 CFR Part 55, which only applies to licensed i

l operators, allows non-SAT based approaches to training.

This provision was j

necessary to accommodate existing industry programs for training licensed i

operators at the time Part 55 was promulgated, because industry-wide implementation of SAT-based training was not complete. At this time, SAT-based training has been broadly implemented by the industry for both licensed operators and other plant personnel. Virtually all of the. initial and requalification programs for licensed operators are SAT-based.

The NRC l

believes that, based on SAT's success and its wide use by industry, that it is i

appropriate to incorporate SAT-based training as a requirement in this rule.

7 3.

Definition of Personnel to be Trained.

l l

Comment.

A number of both general and specific comments were received

{

i that addressed the issue of the definition of the personnel that would be i

covered by the proposed rule. Some held the view that the specification of-the personnel covered by the proposed rule was too narrow while others believed it was too broad.

Some commenters recommended that the proposed rule cover all personnel who perform or oversee design, operation, or naintenance activities regardless of whether they are physically located on-site or off-site. At the same time, the commenters indicated that the proposed rule should explicitly exclude all personnel who, regardless of location, only perform support services.

In addition, the commenters indicated that personnel working under direct supervision, such as short-term contractor 10

1 1

\\

1 personnel, should be excluded from these training requirements.

More i

concretely, numerous commenters requested that the proposed rule, be clarified l

in terrns of personnel to be trained.

For example:

Is a "Radwaste Operator" to be considered a "Non-Licensed Operator"?

Does " Shift Supervisors" include " Assistant Shift Supervisors"? While the job title "I&C Technicians" is precise, " electrical personnel" and " mechanical l

personnel" appear to be broader than " electricians" and " mechanics." Which j

functions or personnel are included in on-site technical staff?

{

Finally, a number of commenters noted that to be consistent with INP0's i

l current accreditation program, managers should not be included in the rule.

j This could be accomplished by amending 9 50.120(b) so that the personnel I

designated as (9) " Technical Staff and Managers" be designated " Engineering Support Personnel." Almost all the commenters seeking clarification of the personnel to be trained recommended that the regulation explicitly state that

[

it applies only to the training programs currently included in the INP0 l

accreditation program.

I Response. The scope of the list of personnel is consistent with and I

incorporates those positions that are currently covered by accreditation and l

l existing industry practice. The NRC believes that the existing training i

i programs for the personnel listed are satisfactory.

For these reasons, the l

l NRC does.not believe it is appropriate to revise the scope of the regulation.

The shift supervisor position.is the only supervisory function included within the scope of the rule and does not include the assistant shift supervisor.

However, the regulation has bnen revised to reflect a change from the title of the "on-site technical staff and managers" category to " engineering support

.11 1

n-

i personnel," which is now consistent with the name for the corresponding INPO accredited training program.

The scope of the personnel covered by that program to be trained in accordance with this regulation, however, is unchanged.

The NRC does not believe that a change to the rule is needed in order to clarify the applicability of this rule to short-term contractor personnel..

l Contractor personnel are not covered by this rule unless they occupy regular positions working independently within the licensee's organization.

However, if short-term contractor personnel are assigned to work independently, they must be qualified to perform the assigned tasks.

Finally, the issue of including off-site personnel in the final rule has been considered.

The NRC has concluded that the requirements apply to job functions in the identified

^

categories of personnel relating to on-site activities regardless of the location of the personnel.

4.

Relationshio Between Trainina and Qualification.

i Comment. One commenter expressed concern that the relationship between r

training and qualification has been blurred. The commenter indicated that while the proposed rule is entitled "Tiaining and Qualification of Nuclear i

Power Plant Personnel," the requirements appear to relate to training only.

i i

It was recommended that the term qualification be eliminated, or, alternatively, that necessary qualifications be explicitly listed.

The commenter also indicated that the NRC should clarify that successful I

completion of a training program is not in and of itself sufficient, in lieu

-l l

6 12

-i l

I i

l 1

1 i

l of any specific qualifications imposed by other regulations, for a particular

)

l position.

]

Response.

The NRC disagrees that the distinction between training and qualification 5as been blurred by the rule. As stated in the preamble for the proposed rule, qualification in the context of this rule means job task qualification. The proposed rule contained the requirement that licensees and applicants develop, implement, and maintain a SAT-based training program to ensure that nuclear power personnel are qualified to perform the tasks of their jobs.

Because licensees and applicants must comply with all applicable regulations, there should be no ambiguity concerning the fact that successful completion of a training program does not obviate the need to comply with any other training or qualification requirements imposed by other regulations or l

I license conditions.

This means that nuclear power plant personnel must also l

meet the licensees' initial job qualification requirements imposed as part of l

initial employment. Therefore, no changes were made to the rule in response i

to this comment.

5.

Acolicability of the Rule.

i Comment.

Several commenters expressed the opinion that the applicability of the rule was too broad with respect to licensees who are undergoing decommissioning or are Part 52 applicants. Specifically, they recommended that the rule apply only to applicants for or licensees with an operating license.

The commenters sugg'ested that facilities engaged in decommissioning where all fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor 13

I 4

vessel or those with a possession only license (POL) should not be subject to i

this rule. Additionally, they questioned why Part 52 needed to be amended to include the requirements of 9 50.120(b), since the provisions of Part 52 l

already automatically incorporate all of the standards in Part 50 that are technically relevant.

Resoonse. The NRC believes that making the provisions of the rule applicable to all Part 50 licensees and applicants is appropriate.

The SAT-process ensures that as plant conditions change, training programs will be revised to reflect these changes. These revisions could include the development of new programs or the elimination of obsolete programs. However, I

the process also ensures that the modification of the program to reflect the l

changed environment is performed in an orderly fashion.

If permanent changes t

f l

in the condition of the plant (i.e., decommissioning or POL) make some or all existing training programs unnecessary, the licensee would obtain relief from I

these requirements by applying for an exemption eliminating or modifying the l

affected programs. Also, the reason that 10 CFR Part 52 needs to be amended is to ensure that Part 52 applicants have considered the requirements of 10 CFR 50.120(b) in their applications.

I i

5.

Implementation of the Rule.

Both general and specific concerns were raised regarding implementation-

[

of the rule, the time periods allowed for implementation, and the means to be -

l used by licensees to demonstrate compliance of a training program that is not accredited by the INP0-managed training accreditation program.

l 14 ge e

m

• l l

(a) General Concerns.

j i

1 r

e Comment.

Numerous commenters expressed concerns regarding the manner in i

which the NRC will monitor implementation of the rule to ensure that it is l

consistent with the Commission's intentions and that the guidance provided by l

the NRC and INPO is consistent.

Specifically, it was recommended that the Commission carefully monitor the implementation of the final rule to ensure a consistent understanding of the regulatory goals as was identified in SECY '

I 172, " Regulatory Impact Survey - Final."

In addition it was suggested that the principles in the Staff Requirements Memorandum dated December 20, 1991, regarding the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program should be applied to this training rule.

Commission monitoring of the j

training rule would ensure that there is intra-and inter-regional consistency in the requirements, evaluation criteria, and results, and would preclude the i

imposition of additional requirements based on rising expectations.

Commenters indicated that the NRC should clarify the process that INPO and the 3

NRC will use to avoid giving licensees conflicting guidance.

Commenters j.;

indicated that the NRC should explicitly state that maintenance of an j

accredited training program will be construed as complete compliance with these training requirements..

i Other commenters indicated that NRC should consider delaying the effective date of the rule until it has completely reviewed implementing guidance (e.g., Reg. Guide 1.8, Rev. 2) and made it j

l consistent with the final rule.

Response.

The NRC believes that the requirements and implementation of f

this rule will be consistent with the accredited programs already developed l

15 I

i i

(

i 1

3 and implemented by the industry.

Therefore, the policy the Commission expects l

(

l to follow in implementing the rule is that continued accreditation along with 1

effective implementation of the accredited program is considered to be an l

j acceptable means of demonstrating compliance.

This conclusion is based on I

i staff inspections which have found the accredited programs to be generally l

acceptable, and the NRC review of documents that provide the industry program l

objectives and criteria. An applicant or licensee could also comply with the i

i i

requirements of this rule without being accredited.

Inspection Procedure t

41500 and NUREG-1220 have been revised to make them consistent with this i

l 1

i regulation. This guidance will be used by the NRC staff when monitoring i

1 e

implementation of this rule or inspecting training programs and is intended to l

ensure consistent interpretation of training criteria by all NRC regions.

The I

NRC, therefore, does not intend to revise Reg. Guide 1.8.

l i

i I

(b)

Implementation Period.

j i

t i

t Comment. With regard to the specific time frames allowed for i

l implementation, several commenters expressed the opinion that if the rule is truly consistent with established programs, that an implementation period of.

I 180 days was reasonable. However, other commenters stated that additional i

i j

time should be granted to accommodate the industry's implementation date of i

December 31, 1993, for the new " Engineering Support Personnel" accredited program and for the review and documentation activities that are believed by j

the commenters to be necessary to demonstrate compliance with the rule.

i Similarly, many believed that the requirement in s 50.120(b) that applicants j.

must have-established and implemented the required training program 18 months 16 I

i l

l I

prior to fuel load is not reasonable, given that the accreditation process for training programs provides for verification and revision of training programs based on experience gained from operations.

It was recommended by several commenters that applicants simply be required to have training programs i

established and ready for accreditation prior to initial fuel load.

Finally, several commenters noted that linking the required program review and revision cycle to the industry's current 4-year schedule is unnecessarily prescriptive.

l Response. The NRC has considered the issues raised by the commenters l

l L

regarding the appropriate implementation time periods for both licensees and applicants.

For licensees, the Commission believes that the 180-day i

i implementation period is sufficient, because all licensees have developed, i

implemented, and are maintaining accredited programs.

Implementation of the l

l new " Engineering Support Personnel" program, which replaces the current

" Technical Staff and Managers" program or other future accredited program i

changes, does not negate the fact that SAT-based training is continuing for the personnel covered by the rule, therefore, compliance with the regulation would be maintained.

The requirement that applicants establish and implement the training

~

i program 18 months prior to fuel load is also considered appropriate. The NRC t

realizes that an applicant would not have a training program accredited l

18 months prior to fuel load, and this rule does not require accreditation.

The rule only requires that a training program be established for those

[

portions of the plant programs necessary to support ongoing activities covered j

under the rule.

In addition, the NRC believes that having the SAT-based j

training program in place prior to fuel load allows significant benefits in.

17 E

n.

n

..n.

k terms of program review and revisions based upon experience gained prior to i

fuel loading.

The NRC concurs that linking the program review-revision cycle to f

existing practice (i.e., a 4-year accreditation-renewal cycle) is unnecessarily prescriptive, therefore reference to specific 4-year review I

cycle has been deleted from the supplementary information section of the final rulemaking notice.

l (c) Review and Recordkeepino Recuirements.

Comment.

Several commenters requested that the NRC clarify the requirements for recordkeeping and for program reviews and revisions.

i Specifically, the NRC was requested to clarify (1) what records need to be maintained in order to meet the requirements of s 50.120, (2) whether any special retention periods apply to these records, and (3) what " associated programs" must be readily auditable, or that this language be dropped from the j

discussion.

They also requested that NRC clarify the rule so that it is clear j

I that the periodic reviews of training programs are to be conducted by l

appropriate functional managers, not just training managers.

j t

Resoonse.

The records the licensees will need to maintain to meet the i

requirements of s 50.120 are the same records currently being maintained by i

licensees for their existing training programs.

The proposed rule does not i

impose any special retention periods for these records.

The words " associated programs" will be deleted from the discussion related to being readily auditable.

The final rule does not require clarification since the proposed 18

rule notes " licensee management," which NRC takes to include functional line J

managers.

i (d)

Demonstration of Compliance.

f Comment. The NRC should clarify how compliance with the rule is to be j

demonstrated by facilities without an accredited program.

f l

t Response. An accredited program is considered to be an acceptable means of demonstrating compliance with the rule.

Facilities that do not have an t

accredited program would demonstrate compliance with the final rule through the development of training programs using the systems approach to training as l

defined in 10 CFR 55.4.

The NRC will conduct inspections of non-accredited

{

facility programs to ensure that the requirements of the final rule are met.

[

t 7.

Recommend that the Commission Trv One More Time to Reverse the Court Decision.

Comment. Most commenters expressed their strong opinion that the rule I.

is unnecessary given the industry's initiatives in developing and implementing effective training programs, but accept the rule as necessary given the Court's decisions.

However,'one commenter requested.that, given the f

President's January 28, 1992, directive that agencies are to " identify and i

accelerate action on initiatives which will eliminate any unnecessary

{

t regulatory burden," the Commission seek, through the Executive Branch, if s-i necessary, a judicial review of the Court's ruling.

i l

19-l 1

l

{

i Response.

The Commission believes that the President's directive does i

not supersede the Court's ruling and the NRC has exhausted all reasonable l

avenues of judicial review.

8.

Reconsideration of Other Trainina Reauirements in Liaht of This Rule.

i Comment. One commenter requested that the NRC review Part 55 in its entirety to ensure that it is consistent with this rule, stating that it is i

possible that many of the prescriptive requirements in existing Part 55 could be eliminated if it were amended to reflect existing industry practice for I

identifying the need for and developing training programs.

I Response.

Part 55 currently states that a SAT-based training program and a certified simulator is an acceptable alternative to the prescriptive requirements of Part 55 and would meet the existing requirements for licensed operator training.

In fact, most of the initial and requalification programs l

for licensed operators are based on SAT.

Thus, Part 55 is consistent with i

this rule.

Furthermore, some programs retain elements of the prescriptive portion of 10 CFR Part 55 and to eliminate these elements would create an f

unnecessary perturbation to these programs.

Discussion The safety of nuclear power plant operations and-the assurance of general public health and safety depend on_ personnel performing at adequate 20

/

l I

l l

performance levels.

The systematic determination of qualifications and the provision of effective initial training and periodic retraining will enhance confidente that workers can perform at adequate performance levels.

Qualification in the context of this rule means that nuclear power plant personnel have completed the training program, or parts thereof, as evidenced i

by meeting the job performance requirements, and are permitted to independently perform specific activities.

The Commission has taken an approach in this rule that would specify the process to be implemented by I

applicants and licensees through which job performance criteria and associated

[

personnel training would be derived. This approach provides for flexibility i

and site-specific adaptations in the training programs. No additional cost is anticipated with this approach for licensees with accredited programs because the rule is believed to be consistent with existing industry practice for personnel training.

i Summary of Final Rule L

i i

Each applicant for and each holder of an operating license for a nuclear power plant shall:

(1)

Establish a training program for certain nuclear power plant personnel who perform operating, maintenance, and technical support l

activities; (2) Use a systems approach to training; l

(3)

Incorporate instructional requirements to provide trained and f

qualified personnel who can safely operate the facility in all modes of i

operation; j

t (4) Periodically review, evaluate, and revise the training' program; and I

i 21 i

l I

?

(5) Maintain sufficient records, available for NRC inspection, to i

verify the adequacy of the training program.

i Although no written response is be required, licensees are expected to f

review their license conditions and other commitments for consistency with I

t this rule.

I The Commission has also developed conforming amendments to 10 CFR i

Parts 50 and 52 to accompany this rule.

Part of these amendments to Parts 50 l

and 52 are considered minor. The other change to Part 52 is more substantive j

and has been developed to ensure that applicants for a combined license i

t (construction and operation) will establish, implement, and maintain a I

training program in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.120.

This rule is not intended to preclude vendor training programs developed in i

conjunction with standardization of design.

l t

f Discussion of Final Rule I

A new 1 50.120, has been added to 10 CFR Part 50, entitled " Training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel.."

j This Section establishes the requirements for and the essential elements f

of the process to be used by applicants and iicensees to:

j (1) Determine training and qualification requirements for all appropriate personnel; i

(2) Develop training programs to ensure that each licensee has trained i

l l

and qualified personnel to operate and maintain the facility in a safe manner; and 22

i i

i (3)

Implement and maintain these programs effectively on a continuing basis.

Paragraph (a), " Applicability," indicates that the rule applies to each f

applicant for and each holder of an operating license for a nuclear power l

pl ant.

Paragraph (b), " Requirements,"

requires that each applicant or licensee

[

establish, implement, and maintain a program for training nuclear power plant t

personnel which addresses all modes of operation and is derived from a systems approach to training (SAT).

The SAT process was selected because it has the l

following characteristics:

(1) Training design and content are derived from job performance i

i requirements; i

f (2) Training is evaluated and revised in terms of job performance requirements and observed results on the job; i

(3) Success in training can predict satisfactory on-the-job a

performance; and (4) A training program can be audited because it involves clearly f

I delineated process steps and documentation.

The SAT process contains five major elements and is intended to require l

a training system that will ensure successful performance on the job by trained individuals.

The elements are:

I (1) Analysis of job performance requirements' and training needs; i

(2) Derivation of learning objectives; (3) Design and implementation of the training programs; (4) Trainee evaluation; (5)

Program evaluation and revision.

23

The SAT process also provides a sequential method of generating the type of documentation needed for training review. Use of SAT will obviate the need for additional documentation for NRC review.

The SAT process is a generic process, and its application is not limited to a certain subject matter or to specific licensee personnel.

Training programs based on job performance requirements have been successfully used by the military for over 20 years and by the nuclear industry for much of the past decade.

Furthermore, the Commission has recognized the appropriateness of using this approach to training in its requirements for operator licensing prescribed in 5 55.31(a)(4), and for operator requalification prescribed in 4 55.59(c).

This rule would provide for the training and qualification of the following nuclear power plant personnel:

(1) Non-licensed operator.

(2) Shift supervisor.

(3) Shift technical advisor.

(4)

Instrument and control technician.

(5)

Electrical maintenance personnel.

(6) Mechanical maintenance personnel.

(7)

Radiological protection technician.

(8) Chemistry technician.

(9)

Engineering support personnel.

Licensed operators, such as control room operators and senior control room operators, are not covered by this rule. They will continue to be covered by 10 CFR Part 55 for both initial and requalification training.

Because some senior control room operators may also be shift supervisors, only 24

those aspects of training related to their shift supervisor function would be covered by this rule.

This rule would require that training programs be periodically evaluated and revised as appropriate, and also be periodically reviewed by management for effectiveness.

Current industry objectives in this regard involve the evaluation by management of individual training programs on a continuing or periodic basis to identify program strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness.

These evaluations are normally completed within a 3-to 6-month period following completion of training within the programs. The sum of these evaluations results in a comprehensive review.

Periodic evaluations of the overall training programs are being performed by the industry as part of accreditation renewal. The Commission expects this practice to continue.

Determination of job performance requirements and training needs is part of the analysis in the SAT process and is reflected in qualification requirements. The facility applicant cr licensee will be responsible for ensuring that all personnel within the scope of this rule have the training and resulting qualifications commensurate with job performance requirements for their assigned tasks.

Initial and continuing training, as appropriate, is expected to be provided to job incumbents in positions covered by this rule.

Each applicant and licensee is required to maintain and keep available for NRC inspection the materials used to establish and implement required training programs for the affected personnel.

Current industry practice in I

this regard involves retention of those records necessary to support j

management information needs and to provide required historical data.

In general, these include records of program development, evaluation, and revision related to the existing training program.

The NRC has found through 25 I

1 inspections of training programs that sufficient records are being retained for periods that are adequate for regulatory purposes.

The Ccmmission 3

i believes that no additional guidance f or recordkeeping is necessary.

j fic written response is required by this rule.

However, applicants and i

licensees would be expected to compare their current training commitments -and l

licensing bases with the requirements of this rule.

Licensees should use the results of this comparison to evaluate and revise, as appropriate, existing technical specifications or previous commitments. This approach will ensure a common understanding between applicants, licensees, and the NRC staff of training commitments when future inspections are conducted.

I Impact of this Rule on Existing Industry Training Programs l

l This rule would supersede the Policy Statement on Training and l

t Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.

The Commission believes that

[

this rule would not result in any change to accredited training programs.

The NRC has found through inspections that the programs are generally acceptable.

l The Commission expects that training programs accredited and implemented l

consistent with the industry program objectives would be in compliance with the requirements of this regulation.

T l

An existing Memorandum of Agreement between INPO and the Commission l

assures that the NRC will be made aware of any modifications or updates to the industry's program objectives and criteria. Having seen such modifications, the NRC will review to determine if they warrant any modification in the f

Commission's position expressed above. The NRC will continue to monitor the i

industry accreditation process by:

{

26 j

f i

(a) Nominating 'Mividuals who ar e not on the NRC staff to serve a2 i

members of the National Nuclear Accrediting Board with full voting privileges; (b) Having an NRC staff member attend and observe selected National Nuclear Accrediting Board meetings with the INP0 staff or the utility J

i representatives; I

(c) Having NRC staff observe selected INP0 accreditation team site visits; (d) Reviewing any subsequent revisions to the program objectives and e

criteria as currently described in the National Academy for Nuclear Training document "The Objectives and Criteria for Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry" (ACAD 91-015)*; ard (e) Verifying licensee programs through the NRC inspection process.

)

I As noted above, the NRC has the ability to verify compliance with this i

regulatit,a through the inspection program and will do so as appropri'te, in i

its inspections, the NRC staff will use inspection Procedure 41500, "',aining l

and Qualification Effectiveness," which references the guidance in NUREG-1220, Revision 1,' " Training Review Criteria and Procedures." Based on NRC anspections conducted to date, the Commission believes that the objectives I

i developed by the industry provides sufficiently clear guidance to allow applicants and licensees to implement effective training programs in A copy of ACAD 91-015 is available for public inspection or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW (Lower Level),

Washington, DC.

i Copies of NUREG-1220, Rev. I may be purchased from the Superintendent of l

Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

A copy is also available for public inspection or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC.

27 1

s

.-l

~

compliance with this rule. Therefore, the Commission does not believe it is necessary to issue a regulatory guide to provide additional guidance for complying with this rule.

Vendor-Developed Programs for Standardized Plants In 10 CFR Part 52, the Commission articulated the goal of safety through standardization of design. The Commission believes that the benefits of standardization could involve the standardization of some types of training l

associated with the 10 CFR Part 52 design certification.

Therefore, nothing in this rule is intended to preclude standard training programs being t

developed or irplemented.7y a vendor.

For example, the initial training for instrument and control technicians related to a particular standard design may be conducted by a vendor.

As 3 result, there could be a pool of technicians trained by the vendor on the certified design available for hire at a nuclear power plant site. These personnel, however, would need to complete site-specific training related to the administrative and operating philosophy of the site as well as any other specific requirements of the licensee.

I Thus, the requirements for personnel training programs prescribed by j

l 50.120 do not prevent a vendor from training personnel or from developing a training process.

However, it is important to note that vendor training that the licensee is ultimately pregrams are not governed by this % _

responsible for ensuring that personn 1 are qualified.

l i

l i

l l

Applicants for a Combined License Part 52 is being amended to require that applicants for combined I

licenses establish, implement, and maintain training programs in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.120.

i i

Criminal Penalties As a result of the addition of Section 52.78 by this rulemaking, the criminal penalty provision, Section 52.113, is being modified to add f

Section 52.78 to the list of sections in subsection (b), since the new section is not identified as substantive, as that criterion is expressed in the l

i Federal Register Notice:

Clarification.of Statutory Authority for Purposes of r

Criminal Enforcement, 57 Fed. Reg. 55062 (November 24,1992).

In addition, Section 52.101 is deleted and Section 52.103 is added to the list, to reflect I

l changes made to Part 52 in a previous rulemaking, 57 Fed. Reg. 60978 (December 23, 1992).

Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:

Availability l

i The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy l

t Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of

)

10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required. Numerous studies have shown that in complex man-machine systems, human error has often been the overriding i

29 l

i

~

contributor to actual or potential system failures that may be precursors to

)

i accidents. With this rulemaking, the NRC is emphasizing the need to en:,ure that industry personnel training programs are based upon job performance j

requirements.

Personnel who are subjected to training based on job performance requirements should be able to perform their jobs more j

effectively, and with fewer errors. Therefore, the environmental effect of f

i implementing this rule would, if anything, be positive because of the reduction in human error. The environmental assessment and finding of no-significant impact on which this determination is based are available for i

inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (i.ower Level),

Washington, DC 20555.

Single copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available from Rajender Auluck, Office of f

Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, l

DC 20555, telephone:

(301) 492-3794.

i Paperwork Reduction Act Statement l

This final rule amends information collection requirements that are l

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44'U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

f These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Sudget I

approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0151.

Public burden for update and maintenance of information is estimated to average 780 hours0.00903 days <br />0.217 hours <br />0.00129 weeks <br />2.9679e-4 months <br /> per utility per year, including the time for reviewing the '

{

\\

present program, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining i

l the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 30 4

I i

i

=

s collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to I

the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-3019, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

i Regulatory Analysis i

i A regulatory analysis has been prepared for this final regulation.

The l

analysis examines tne values (benefits) and impacts (costs) of implementing the regulation for personnel training and qualification.

This analysis is l

l available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street,. NW.

(Lower level), Washington, DC 20555.

Single copies of the analysis may bc i

obtained from Rajender Auluck (see ADDRESSES heading).

Regulatory Flexibility Certification f

i

)

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

I I

the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic j

i impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This final rule primarily-1 affects the companies that own and operste light-water nuclear power reactors f

and the vendors of those reactors. The companies that own and operate these reactors do not fall within the scope of the definition _of "small entity" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards set out in regulations issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121.

M

L..

Backfit Analysis l

The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule because these amendments are mandated by Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. Section 10226.

1 Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this rule, f

l List of Subjects e

f 10 CFR Part 50- Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penalty, Fire protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, I

Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting I

criteria, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

l 10 CFR Part 52-Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Backfitting, Combined license, Early site permit, Emergency planning, Fees, inspection, Limited work authorization, Nuclear power plants and reactors,

?

Probabilistic risk assessment, Prototype, Reactor siting criteria, Redress of t

site, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard l

l design certification.

l E

I For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the l

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553,

)

the NRC is adopting the following amendments to 10_.CFR Parts 50 and 52 as follows:

l 32 l

1

~

PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSIN9 0F PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.

The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 50 is revised to read as t

follows:

AUTHORITY:

Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat, 936, 937, 93P, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

Section 50.7 also issued under Pub. L.95-601, sec.10, 92 Stat. 2951 (42 U.S.C. 5851).

Section 50.10 also issued under secs. 101, 185, 68 Stat.

936, 955, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2131, 2235); sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued l

under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).

Sections 50.23, L

50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.

l 2235).

Sections 50.33a, 50.55a, and Appendix Q also issued under sec. 102, Pub. L.91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.34 and 50.54 also issued under sec. 204, 88 Stat. 1245 (42 U.S.C. 5844). Sections 50.58, 50.91, and 50.92 also issued under Pub. L.97-415, 96 Stat. 2073 (42 U.S.C. 2239).

Section 50.78 also issued under sec.122, 68 Stat. 939 (42 U.S.C. 2152).

Sections 50.80 - 50.81 also issued under sec. 184, 68 Stat. 954, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2234).

Section 50.120 is also issued under Section 306 of the NWPA of 1982, 42 U.S.C. 10226.

Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).

2.

In % 50.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

33

2.

In s 50.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

& 50.8 Information collection reauirements: OMB aoproval.

[

(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in ss 50.30, 50.33, 50.33a, 50.34, 50.34a, 50.35, 50.36, 50.36a, l

50.48, 50.49, 50.54, 50.55, 50.55a, 50.59, 50.60, 50.61, 50.63, 50.64, 50.71, 50.72, 50.80, 50.82, 50.90, 50.91, 50.120, and Appendixes A, B, E, G, H, I, J, l

K, M, N, 0, Q, and R.

i 3.

Section 50.120 is added to read as follows:

s 50.120 Trainino and oualification of nuclear power clant personnel.

(a)

Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to each applicant for (applicant) and each holder of an operating license (licensee) for a nuclear power plant of the type specified in s 50.21(b) or 6 50.22.

(b) Requirements.

Each nuclear power plant applicant, by (180 days after the effective date of the rule) or 18 months prior to fuel load, whichever is later, and each nuclear power plant licensee, by (180 days after the effective date of the rule), shall establish, implement, and maintain a training program derived from a systems approach to training as defined in 10 CFR 55.4.

The training program must provide for the training and qualification of the following categories of nuclear power plant personnel:

I (1) Non-licensed operator.

(2)

Shift supervisor.

(3)

Shift technical advisor.

34

l l

(4)

Instrument and control technician.

i (5)

Electrical maintenance personnel.

(6) Mechanical maintenance personnel.

(7) Radiological protection technician.

(8) Chemistry technician.

i (9)

Engineering support personnel.

i 1

The training program must incorporate the instructional requirements necessary I

to provide qualified personnel to operate and maintain the facility in a safe l

manner in all modes of operation. The training program must be developed so i

as to be in compliance with the facility license, including all technical l

specifications and applicable regulations.

The training program must be l

periodically evaluated and revised as appropriate to reflect industry i

experience as well as changes to the facility, procedures, regulations, and quality assurance requirements.

The training program must be periodically

{

t reviewed by licensee management for effectiveness.

Sufficient records must be maintained by the licensee to maintain program integrity and kept available f

for NRC inspection to verify the adequacy of the prograsi.

PART 52 - EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS; AND i

i COMBINED LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS l

i j

4.

The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 52 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY:

Secs. 103, 104, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat, 936, 948, 953, 954, 955, 956, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 1244, as amended (42 U.S.C.

1 35

. _, _.~.

I i

(. * *.,

\\

2133, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2236, 2239, 2282); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846).

5.

In s 52.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

6 52.8 Information collection reauirements: OMB approval.

)

l r

(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this i

part appear in ll 52.15, 52.17, 52.29, 52.45, 52.47, 52.57, 52.75, 52.77, 52.78, and 52.79.

l 6.

Section 52.78 is added to read as follows:

6 52.78 Contents-of applications: trainino and aualification of nuclear i

(

power plant eersonnel.

}

(a) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply only to the l

i personnel associated with the operating phase of the combined licenses.

(b) The application must demonstrate compliance with the requirements for training programs established in -l 50.120 of this chapter.

7.

In 5 52.113, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:

6 52.113 Criminal penalties.

i (b) The regulations in Part 52 that are not issued under Sections 161b, F

161i, or 1610 for the for the purposes of Section 223 are as follows:

i l 5 52.1, 52.3, 52.5, 52.8, 52.11, 52.13, 52.15, 52.17, 52.18, 52.19, 52.21, 52.23, 52.24, 52.27, 52.29, 52.31, 52.33, 52.37, 52.39, 52.41, 52.43, 52.45, i

i 52.47, 52.48, 52.49, 52.51, 52.53, 52.54, 52.55, 52.57, 52.59. 52.61, 52.71, j

36

[

52.73, 52.75, 52.

2.78, 52.79, 52.81, 52.83, 52.85, 52.87, 52.89, 52.93, 52.97, 52.103, 52.111, and 52.113.

t t

II W

Dated at Rockville, MD, this day of April 1993.

l I

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

f I

+

f vk

(

(

y-l Samuel J. Chilk

~

Secretary of the Commission.

i l

37 1

i

N a

J CCNGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM j

DOCUMENT PREPARATION CHECKLIST This checklist is be submitted with each document (or group of Gs/As) sent for

• ing into the CCS.

5 I.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT (S),

iI Nmv M

' 7%"

r

/

U 8

]

3.

TYPE OF-DOCUMENF Correopendenser Isarings (Qs/Ael J

3.

DOCUMENT CONTROL Sensitive (NRC Caly)

V 'Non-Seneitive i

4.

CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE and SUBCOMMITTEES (if applicable) l Congressional Committee 1

l l

Subcommittaa 5.

SUBJECT CODE 3 (a)

(b)

(c) 6.

s0URCE OF DOCUMENTS (a) 5520 (document name (b)

Scan.

(c)

Atlachments (4)

Rakey (e)

Other 7.

SYSTEM LOG DATES (a)

I 43 Date OCA seat document to CCS (b)

Date CCS receivess document (s)

Date returned to OCA for additional information (d)

Date resubmitted by-0CA to CCS

~

(e)

Date entered into CCS by

~

(f)

Date oCA notified that document is in CCS s.

COMMENTS 130074 1

)