ML20045C323
| ML20045C323 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/04/1992 |
| From: | Norry P NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| To: | Heltemes C NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH (RES) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20044B504 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR21904, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-52 AD80-2-011, AD80-2-11, NUDOCS 9306220360 | |
| Download: ML20045C323 (41) | |
Text
fr
,=
dgl UNITED STATES 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION YMMb
. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20565
)
,/
./
p'.(#
...s NOV 0 41992 D. $D9 MEMORANDUM FOR:
C.
J.
Heltemes, Jr., Deputy Director
() f(
for Generic Issues and Rulemaking Office of Nucleir Regulatory Research FROM:
Patricia G.'Norry, Director Office of Adlainistration
SUBJECT:
OFFICE CONCURRENCE ON FINAL RULE ENTITLED,
" TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION OF NUCLEAR POWER.
PLANT PERSONNEL" The Office of Administration concurs, subject to the comments provided, on the final rule that requires nuclear power: plant applicants and licensees to establish,. implement, and maintain;a training program for nuclear' power plant personnel-based on a systems. approach to training.
We have attached a marked-copy of the final rule and congressional letters that present editorial 1 a
and format changes.
These changes.should be made before'the-proposed rule is submitted for Commission consideration.
Th3 have provided the Information and Records Management Branch of' the. Office of Information~ Resources Management (IRM) a copy of the rule to review for compliance.with the paperwork Reduction Act.
You should contact Brenda Shelton (492-8132) for further guidance concerning this matter.
i If you have any questions regarding this matter, please have a-member of your staff contact Michael T. Lesar on 492-7758 or Alzonia Shepard on 492-7651.
.j P
/
//~
P a't r i c i a 6. Norry, Dir or Office of Admi'nistrati l
Attachments:
As stated i
9306220360 930506 PDR PR-50 5BFR21904 PDR
+ o
..-,-.f i
1
.. m o
[7590-01]'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 RIN 3150 - AD80 Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel i
AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION:
Final rule.
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to require each applicant for and each holder of a license to operate a
.l nuclear power plant to establish, implement, and maintain a training program for nuclear power-plant personnel based on a systems approach to training.
(SAT).4This action is being taken to mee the directives of Section 306 of
, e dryan
/+cyn
-~J 77 will provide qu;alified personnel to -
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982/a~n 3
--~~-a Te, rate and maintain nuclear power plants in a safe manner in all modes of operation.
.l I
I EFFECTIVE DATE:
For each nuclear power plant applicant, by [180 days after.
the effective date of the rule] or 18 months prior. to fuel load, whichever is' j
later, and for each nuclear power plant licensee, by [180 days after the effective date of the rule).
~
ADDRESSES:
Copies of all referenced NRC documents are 'available for. public inspection and copying for a fee at 'the NRC Public Document Room [ 2120 L Street, NW Lower level)(f_the GelmanJ3pli[iR,IWashington, DC 20555.
L
.c Copies of NUREG documents may be purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office by calling (202) 275-2060, or~ by writing to the Superintendent' of' 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.
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
((NuclearWastePolicyActof1982 i
In Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA), Pub. L.97-425, the NRC was " directed to promulgate regulations, or other appropriate Commission regulatory guidance for the training and qualifications of civilian l
nuclearpowerplantoperators, supervisors,techniciansandotheroperating
~
s7/4 personnel.47 uch-regulations or guidance shall establish... instructional S
requirements for civilian nuclear power plant licensee personnel training programs."
Inordertomeetthisdirective,onMarch20,l98g,the' Commission published ((50 FR 11147)$ a Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of
~
2
Nuclear Power Plant Personnel. The policy statement endorsed a training accreditation program managed by the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0b(nt5At t encompassed the elements o. effective performance-based training and provided the basis to ensure that personnel have qualifications commensurate with the performance requirements of their jobs.
In addition to endorsing the INP0-managed training accreditation program, the 1985 Policy Statement also recognized the INP0-managed accreditation of utility training programs for the following categories of nuclear power plant personnel:
(1)
Non-licensed operator.
(2)
Control room operator.
(3)
Senior control room operator / shift supervisor.
(4)
(5)
Instrument and control technician.
(6)
Electrical maintenance personnel.
(7)
Mechanical maintenance personnel.
(8)
Radiological protection technician.
l (9)
Chemistry technician.
(10)
On-site technical staff and managers.
While issuing the policy statement, the Commission decided to defer h
rulemaking in this area for a minimum of years in order to allow the MM' industry to continue its initiatives to upgrade training programs through the INP0-managed training accreditation program.
Following issuance of the policy.
statement, the NRC evaluated the INP0-managed training accreditation program overaf-yearperiodandconcludedthatitwasaneffectiveprogram.
On y
November 18, 198 the NRC published an amended policy statement in order to(p (a rn ma) a/
du
-[(1)provideadditionalinformationregardingtheNRC'sexperiencewith p
industry accreditation', (2) gange the policy regarding enforcement to eliminate discretion in inspection and enforcement in the areas covered by the 1985 Policy Statement; and (3) r,eflect current Commission and industry
.U. guidance [TheNRCcontinuestoperforminspectionsatdifferentutili ensure that these training programs remain effective.
U.S. Court of Appeals Decision On April 17, 1990, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded'that the Commission's Policy Statement did not meet.
the intent of the Congressional directive to create mandatory requirements'for personnel training programs at civilian nuclear power plants. The Court remanded the issue back to the NRC for action consistent with the Court's findings.
See, Public Citizen v. NRC, 901 F.2d 147 (D.C. Cir ), cert denied, 59 U.S.L.W. 3392 (November 26, 1990).
The 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.
J J
Actions Taken in Response to the Court Decision
]ht
'i In response to the court ~ decision,(NRC developed the proposed rule :(4 t
amend @/10 CFR Parts-50 and 52, entitled " Training and Qualification of.
.i The proposed.ule was~ published-in the Federal Nuclear Plant Personnel."
r WonId i
Register on January 7, 1992 The amendments require that each applicant for 3
Drf S3)) 4
and each holder of a license to operate a nuclear power plant establish, i
i;..plement, and maintain a training program for nuclear power plant personnel 1
that provides qualified personnel to operate and maintain the facility in a P
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.
The proposed rule /requir@ training programs to be derived from a J41d/
v j
systematic analysis of job performance requirements. -Current industry training programs have been developed consistent with this approach.
Based on monitoring industry training programs since the 1985 Policy Statement went into effect, the NRC has concluded that _these programs have been generally-effective in ensuring that personnel have qualifications commensurate with the performance requirements of their jobs.
The comment period for the proposed rule expired March 7,1992.
Public nwaJ comment lettersgon the proposed ' rule are available for public inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room. The k c_omments yut tyw &d came-from 30 individuals and corporate entities, virtually all of whom are directly involved in the nuclear power industry. Manyofthe9 betters: I contained similar commentsp Nhhavebeengroupedtogetherandaddressedas A
a single issue. All comments have been grouped into eight broad issues.
For r/h wtr /m3 each broad issuepncluded herein-4g a summary of the comments received and an hanalysis and response to those comments.
5
q Summary and Analysis of Public Comments
/N 1.
Responsibility for Train _ig and Acceplah111ty_nf Third-Party Training-a A,ccreditation Programs O Comment.
Several commenters indicated that the hRC should clarify who under the proposed requirements will have responsibility for training contractor personnel.
Given the proposed rule's requirement that training programs be based on a systems approach to training, they indicated that the NRC should clarify its intention regarding the acceptability of licensees relying on third-party training programhother than INP0-managed training
[
accreditation-certification programs in evaluating the training needs and 1
qualifications of personnel.
The' Radiation Protection Association's program of registration-certification of Health Physics Technicians was cited as an example of an other than INPO-managed training accreditation-certification program that the Commission should explicitly endorse.
Commenters also 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 qualified), then additional training is not required.
Finally, commenters questioned whether the NRC has developed acceptance criteria for licensees to i
use in determining the acceptability of vendor-developed and other third-party.
4 training programs, and if the NRC anticipated deriving such criteria from NUREG-1220.
Response.
The intent of the rule is to ensure that nuclear power plant personnel have the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform their 6
s
-w t
g
-y v-q s-u--
r
, +,, - - - - = -
w-.=
assigned jobs competently; i.e., they are qualified to independently perform 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.
The requirement that each licensee or applicant develop, implement,_and maintain a SAT-based training program is applicable only to licensee personnel, not contractors, and establishes a process that provides a high-degree of assurance that personnel will be qualified to perform their assigned duties.
This assurance arises from the five major elements of the SAT process:
- 1) analysis of job performance requirements and training needs; 2) derivation of learning objectives; 3) design and implementation of the training programs; 4) trainee evaluation; and 5) program evaluation and 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, are acceptable provided that the licensee has evaluated the programs to ensure that they will result in proper qualification. bwsbie acceptability of Ince vendor-developed programs will vary based on individual facility needs, the NRC is not providing specific acceptance criteria.
Licensees should evaluate vendor-developed training program: against the facility's job and task i
analysis results to ensure that the vendor programs will meet the licensee's specific qualification requirements.
~
/
- f. Qh
.f-Y^
L t
"W' W
/S f
(
/
's%-am m
~ ~
7
,c w..
1
-[jf2.
AppropriatenessofSAT-basedTraining((]
j Comment.
Numerous commenters questioned the appropriateness of:
requiring SAT-based training.
At the most basic level was a concern that'the NRC has not placed sufficient emphasis on the fact that the required SAT-based.
i 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 I
underlying their training. A more widely held concern was that the proposed:
rule could be construed as requiring additional rigorous job and task analysis, particularly since NRC Inspection Procedure-41500 is more restr c.'ve in this area than the current requirements for INPO-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 the rule.
They requested that the NRC explicitly acknowledge that varying degrees of rigor in the performance of job and task analysis are t
appropriate for differing types of positions, as are analyses completed through cooperative generic industry efforts.
Specifically, it was recommended that training programs affecting the Shift Superv;sor, Shift t
Technical Advisor, and Technical Staff and Managers be allowed and encouraged to rely on additional bases for determining training needs and that Inspection Procedure 41500 and NUREG-1220, " Training Review Criteria and Procedures," be a
revised to make them fully consistent with current INP0 guidance.
- Finally, one commenter noted that SAT-based training is inconsistent with the 9e p) M c!
$skedthattheHRC requirements in 10 CFR Part 55 for licensed operators and 3
explain why it has determined that only SAT-based training is acceptable.
8 4
F u
M4
$Y -
=
i-l l
1 1
R e.s.pon s e.
The Commission shares the concern that sal-based training not-e Os be treated in a " cookbook" manner.
It is not the intent of/NRC that the 1
1 industry simply approach the SAT-based program in a " cookbook" manner, since j
the NRC does not' intend to discourage licensees from imposing additional'
-l 1
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 of the positions listed in this rule. The NRC has monitored and evaluated the y-The N/tc^
development and implementation of the current industry programgamf believes that the job and 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 1
position that additional job and task analyses'are not being required, the NRC i
has revised Inspection Procedure 41500 and NUREG-1220 to make them consistent I
l with this regulation.
The NRC recognizes that 10 CFR Part 55, which only applies to licensed-operators, allows non-SAT. based approaches to training.
Thiska#Noi :
kp s
accommodate existing industry programs for training licensed operators at the time Part 55 was promulgated since'f}dustry-wide implementation of SAT-based xcaw e in ICu nentbjj training was not complete. Sow, SAT-based training has been broadly I
W implemented by the industry for both licensed operators and other plant personnel. Most of the initial and requalification programs for licensed snru operators are based on SAT. The NRC believes that based on (t)Nuccess and 35
'N l
9
~
l
.i yd j
wide use by industry, it is appropriate to incorporate SAT-based training as a requirement in this rule.
[P 3.
DefinitionofPersonneltobeTrained9 Comment.
A number of both general and specific comments were rec'eived //#~'
/ $a f taou ld b 4 y
addressOng the issue of the definition of the personnel covered by thegrule.c prop 06, f
Qq Some held the view that the specification of the-personnel covered by the
/a g d i
proposed rule was too narrow while others 4 R it was too broad.
Some f% posed commenters recommended that the rule cover all personnel who perform or g
oversee design, operation, or maintenance activities regardless of whether they are physically located on-site or of f-site. At the same time, the pops /d commenters indicated that the rule should explicitly exclude all personnel j
who, regardless of location, only perform support services.
In addition, the commenters indicated that personnel working under direct supervision, such as short-term contractor personnel, should be excluded from these training requirements. Moreconcretely,numerouscommentershdh$h'atthe ftsp?ircl th ofNhAltend
. applicability-of-the rule,(in terms o.fg ersonnel to be trained, fied) 3 6
f)
For example:
Is a "Radwaste Operator" to be considered a "Non-Licensed Operatod"[)
i Does " Shift Supervisors" include " Assistant Shift Supervisord"O While the job title "I&C Technicians" is precise, " electrical personnel" and " mechanical perscnnel" appear to be broader than " electricians" and " mechanics." Which functions or personnel are included in on-site technical staff?
10 t
,____a_
Finally, a number of commenters noted that to be consistent with INP0's current accreditation program, managers should not be included in the rule.
Thiscouldbe'accomplishedbyamendingfp0.120(b)sothatthepersonnel designated as (9) " Technical Staff and Managers" be designated " Engineering j
Support Personnel." Almost all the commenters seeking clarification of the personnel to be trained recomme,,ded that the regulation explicitly state that it applies only to the training programs currently included in the INP0 accreditation program.
{
I Response.
The scope of the list of personnel is consistent with and incorporates those positions that are currently covered by accreditation and existing industry practice.
The NRC believes that the existing training programs for the personnel listed are satisfactory.
For these reasons, the 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 been revised to reflect a change from the title of the "on-site technical staff and managers" category to " engineering support personnel," which is now consistent with the name for the corresponding INP0 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.
Contractor personnel are not covered by this rule unless they occupy regular positions working independently within the licensee's organization.
- However, 11
4
-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}ruie& l.
.L has been considered. NRC has f
concluded that the 1es a Sy to job functions in the identified categories of personnel. relating to on-site activities regardless of the location of the personnel.
((' 4.
Relationship Between Training and Qualification (9 Comment. One commenter expressed concern that the relationship between training and qualification has been blurred.
The commenter indicated that qcfald while th rule is entitled " Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel," the requirements appear to relate to training only.
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-completion of a training program is not in and of itself sufficient, in lieu of any specific qualifications
.[
imposed by other regulations, for a particular position.
E Response. The NRC disagrees that the distinction between training and qualification has been blurred by the rule.
As stated in the[reamble for the proposed rule, qualification in the context of this rule means job task qualification.
The proposed rule contained the requirement that-licensees and l
f applicants develop, implement, and maintain a SAT-based training program to ensure that nuclear power personnel are qualified to perform the tasks of Sc.w GC their jobs.C,Since licensees and applicants must comply with all applicable 12
f L
l 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 license conditions.
This means that nuclear power plant personnel must also
. meet the licensees' initial job qualification requirements imposed as part of initial employment. Therefore, no changes were made to the rulejlo ' /?fM+
fe /kn rca m rA.
[ 5.
Applicability _of__theRuled 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 l
recommended that the rule apply only to applicants for or licensees with an-operating license. The commenters suggested that facilities engaged in decommissioning where all fuel has been permanently removea from the reactor vessel or those with a possession only license (POL) should not be subject to this rule. Additionally, they questioned why Part 52 needed to be amended'to include the requirements off50.120(b), since the provisions of Part 52 already automatically incorporate all of the standards in Part 50 that are. technically relevant.
l l
Response. The NRC believes that making the provisions of the rule i
applicable to all Part 50 licensees and applicants is appropriate. The SAT-
]
process ures that as plant conditions change, training programs will 13
-l f
i l
7 7Nyt be revised to reflect these 'hanges. gtsch-revisions could include the 1
development of new-programs or the elimination of obsolete programs.
- However,
'the process also ensures that the modification of the program to reflect the Rvloravci changed environment is,doneg n an orderly fashion.
If permanent changes'in i
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 -
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.
h9 6.
Implementation of the Rule _O Both general and specific concerns were raised regarding implementation of the rule, the time periods allowed for implementation, and.the means to be used by licensees to demonstrate compliance of a training program that is not I
accredited by the INP0-managed training accreditation program.
t t
(a) General Concerns g I
Comment.
Numerous commenters expressed concerns regarding the manner in which the NRC will monitor implementation of the rule to ensure that it is consistent with the Commission's intentions and that the guidance provided by the NRC and INP0 is consistent.
Specifically, it was recommended that the
}
Commission carefully monitor the implementation of the final rule to ensure consistency with the principles established by the Commission in response to 14 mr
,,a
~
e-,,
~ ~.
t 4
5 the Regulatory impact Survey. Applying the principles in the Staff Requirements Memorandum for the Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) program would ensure that there is intra-and. inter-regional consistency in the requirements, evaluation criteria, and results, and would preclude the imposition of additional requirements based on rising expectations.
Commenters indicated that the NRC should clarify the process
-l that INP0 and the NRC will use to avoid giving licensees conflicting guidance.
Commenters indicated that-the NRC should explicitly state that maintenance of i
an accredited training program will be construed as complete compliance with these training requirements. 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 consistent with the final rule.
7 Response. The NRC believes that the requirements and implementation of y
thf rule will be consistent with the accredited programs already developed and implemented by the industry.
Therefore, continued accreditation is considered to be an acceptable means of demonstrating compliance.
This conclusion is l
based (o[nstaffinspectionswhichhavefoundtheaccreditedprogramstobe l
~
gync generally acceptable, and the ts-t+ff's review of documents that provide the l
industry program objectives and criteria. An applicant or licensee could also comply with the requirements of this rule without being accredited.
While the j
NRC will not use the principles of the SALP program, to ensure consistency and precluderisingexpectation@InspectionProcedure41500andNUREG-1220have been revised to make them consistent with this regulation.
This guidance will be used by the NRC staff when monitoring implementation of this rule or-15 l
2 l
C inspecting training programs and is intended to ensure consistent
{g/
l interpretation of training criteria by all NRC regions. The s
- herefore, does not intend to revise Reg. Guide 1.8.
The NRC will.use.the agreements outlined in the INP0/NRC Memorandum of Agreement to minimize conflicting guidance and improve consistency in the_ understanding of regulations by_bots NRC staff and others.
This was one of the key points identified in the Regulatory Impact Survey.
(b)
ImplementationPeriod3 Comment.
With regard to the specific time frames allowed for implementation, several commenters expressed the opinion that if the rule is 1
truly consistent with established programs that an implementation period of j
180 days was reasonable.
However, other commenters stated that additional.
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 I he commenters to be necessary to demonstrate compliance with the rule.
Similarly, many believed that the requirement in[50.120(b) that applicants
)
must have established and implemented the required training program 18 months prior to fuel load is not reasonable given that the accreditation process for j
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 established and ready for accreditation prior to initial fuel load.
- Finally, 16
[Lu
[
several commenters noted that 4ying[the required program review and revision cycle to the industry's current 4-year schedule is unnecessarily prescriptive.
Response.
The NRC has considered the issues raised by the commenters regarding the appropriate implementation time periods for both licensees and applicants.
For licensees, the Commission believes that the 180-day implementation period is sufficient, because all licensees have developed, implemented, and are maintaining accredited programs.
Implementation of the new " Engineering Support Personnel" program, which replaces the current i
" Technical Staff and Managers" program or other future accredited program 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 program 18 months prior to fuel load is also considered appropriate. The NRC realizes that an applicant would not have training programs accredited 18 monthspriortofuelload,andthfyrule does not require accreditation.
However, the NRC does believe that having the SAT-btsed training program-in place prior to fuel load allows significant benefits in terms of program review and revisions based upon experience gained,. f or to fuel loading.
The NRC concurs that linking the program review-revision cycle to existing practice (i.e., a 4 year accreditation-renewal cycle) is
,Q c
unnecessarily prescriptive,(and;r/:ference to specific 4 year review cycle has e
)
4.
been deleted from the supplementary information section of the final rulemaking notice.
17
E r
(c)
Review and Recordkeeping Requirements 6) f9uckcl Several commentersgsked that the NRC clarify the requirements Comment.
for recordkeeping and for program reviews and revisions.
Specifically, the-
[ch o clarify'(1) what records need to be main'tained in order to NRC was meettherequirementsofh50.120,(2) whether any special retention periods
)
what " associated programs" must be readily !
apply to these records, and (3) be clrqWclaudita MNc drop 4
s NRC clarify the rule so that it is clear that the periodic reviews of. training programs are to be conducted by appropriate functional managers, not.just training managers.
R soonse.
The records the licensees will need to maintain to meet the J
requirements of 5 50.120 are the same records currently.being maintained by'
'JVoro s/d
+
licensees for their existing training programs. Th(grule does not impose any special retention periods for these records. The words " associated programs" will be deleted from the discussion related to beicg readily auditable.
The
$ru.n Ile does not require clarification since tpe rbis,tpa hs r
e
" licensee management,"
g which NRC takes to include functional line managers.
(d)
DemonstrationofComplianceg
^
Comment. The NRC should clarify how compliance with the rule is to be demonstrated by facilities without an accredited program.
i Response.
An accredited program is considered to be an acceptable means of demonstrating compliance with the rule.
Facilities that do not have an 3
18 i
i r
~ -.
w-
---.----.---- N
j
- l004 I
accredited program would demonstrate compliance with the/rlule through i
development of training programs using the systems approach to. training as dyghe+
The NRC will inspectato ensure that the requirements i
defined _in 10 CFR 55.4.
f aul avn5
- j ofth}erulearemet.
f 7.
Recommend _that the Commission Try One More Time to Reverse the Court b Decisiog)
Comment. Most commenters expressed their strong opinion that the rule is unnecessary given the industry's initiatives in developing and implementing effective training programs, but accept the rule as necessary given the Court % -
~
decisions.
However, one commenter requested that, given the President's' January 28, 1992 directive that agencies are to " identify and accelerate 11 action on initiatives which will eliminate any unnecessary regulatory burden,"
the Commission seek, through the Executive Branch, if necessary, a judicial _
l review of the Court's ruling.
}
Response.
The Commission believes that the President's directive does NRC 1
i not supersede the Court's ruling and theggency has exhausted all reasonable avenues of judicial review.
[ 8.
Reconsideration of Other Training Requirements in Light of This Rule $
Comment. One commenter requested that the NRC review Part 55 in its l
entirety to ensure that it is consistent with this rule, stating that it is possible that many of the prescriptive requirements in existing Part 55 could t
19 r
.be eliminated if it were amended to reflect existing ~ industry practice ~ for
. identifying the need for and developing training programs.
Response.
Part 55 currently states that a SAT-based training program I
and a certified simulator is an acceptable alternative.to the prescriptive i
requirements of Part 55 and.would meet the existing requirements for. licensed operator training.
In fact, most of the initial and requalification programs for licensed operators are based' on SAT. 'Thus, Part 55 is consistent with this rule.
Futhermore some programs retain elements of the prescriptive portionof10CFRPart55andtoeliminatethesefwh0$b'Ireateanunnecessary perturbation to these programs.
1 7
b 6
1 t
k 4
20
=
i
)
Discussion The safety. of nuclear power plant operations and the~ assurance of I
general public health and safety depend on personnel performing at adequate performance levels. The systematic determination of qualifications and the provision of effective initial training and periodic retraining will enhance confidence that workers can perform at adequate performance levels.
J Qualification in the context of this rule means that nuclear power plant personnel have completed the training program, or parts t iereof, as evidenced by meet ing 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 applicants and licensees through which job performance criteria and associated personnel training would be derived. This approach provides.for flexibility 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, t
Summary of Final Rule Each applicant for and each holder of an operating license for a nuclear power plant wode-be-required tor--
p/m// J (1)
Establish a training program for certain nuclear power plant personnel who perform operating, maintenance, and technical support activities; (2)
Use a systems approach to training; 21
h (3)
Incorporate instructional requirements to provide trained and i
qualified personnel who can safely operate the facility in all modes.of operation; (4)
Periodically review, evaluate, and revise the training program; and (5) Maintain sufficient records, available for NRC inspection, to verify the adequacy of the training program.
4 Gtt Although no written response wouf.s.d-be required, licensees would-be-w expected to review their license conditions and other commitments for ip consistencywiththegeerule.
The Commission has also developed conforming amendments ~to 10 CFR-Parts 50 and 52 to accompany this rule.
Part of these amendments to Parts 50 and 52 are considered minor.
The other change to Part 52 is.more substantive and has been developed to ensure that applicants'for a combined license (construction and operation) will-establish, implement, and maintain.a training program in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.120.
This rule is not intended to preclude vendor training programs developed in conjunction with standardization of design.
J Discussion of Final Rule bn it?n A new @HTFs!'! 50.120, guld-be added to 10 CFR Part 50
" Training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel."
l
- s u%.
~\\
Thisgule establishes the requirements for and the essential elements of the process to be used by applicants and licensees toffi'(1) determine training and qualification requirements for all appropriate personnel;ft2) develop
?.
training programs to ensure that each licensee has trained and qualified 22 i
'I
o I
personnel to operate and maintain the facility in a safe manner; and (3) implement and maintain these programs effectively on a continuing basis.
y-Paragraph.(a)," Applicability,"indicatesthatthe.rulewi-ltapplfto' each applicant for and each holder of an operating license for a nuclear. power.
plant.
Paragraph (b),"Recuirements,"would'requirefthateachapplicantor C,
licensee establish, implement, and maintain a program for training nuclear -
power plant 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 following characteristics:
(1)
Training design and content are. derived from job performance requirements; (2)
Training is evaluated and revised in terms of job performance requirements and observed results on the job; l
(3)
Success in training can predict satisfactory on-the-job performance; and (4)
Training and associated programs can be readily auditea because they involve clearly delineated process steps and documentation.
The SAT process contains five major elements and is intended to require a training system that will ensure successful performance on the job by trained individuals.. The elements are:
l r
(1) Analysis of job performance requirements ar.d training needs; (2) Derivation of learning objectives; (3)
Design and implementation of the training programs; 6
(4)
Trainee evaluation; (5)
Program evaluation and revision.
23
t 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 f
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 s 55.31(a)(4), and for operator requalification prescribed in 555.59(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)
i (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 roem 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.
'or effectiveness.
Current industry criteria in this regard involve the evaluation by management of individual training programs onLa continuing or periodic basis to identify program strengths, weaknesses, and effectiveness.
These evaluations are normally completed within a 3-to 6-month period J
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,Pu6iw> s c' i
done by the industry as part of The Commission expects the-above#prac%D 7
tice to continue.
accreditation renewal.
Determination of job performance requirements and training needs is part i
of the analysis in the SAT process and is reflected in qualification-requirements.
The facility applicant or 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 criteria in this regard involve retention of those records necessary to support management l
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 inspections of 25 i
e D
~- -. - -
t t' raining programs that sufficient records are being retained-for periods that l
are adequate for regulatory purposes. The Commission believes that no additional guidance for recordkeeping is necessary.
No written response is required by this rule. However, applicants and licensees would be-expected to compare their current' training commitments and licensing bases with the requirements of this rule.
Licensees should use the i
results of this comparison to evaluate and revise, as appropriate, existing technical specifications or previous commitments.
This approach will ensure a-i common understanding between applicants, licensees, and_the NRC staff of l
training commitments when future inspections are conducted.
t Impact of this Rule on Existing Industry Training Programs This rule would supersede the Policy Statement on Training and 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.
The Commission concludes that training programs actredited and implemented
]
consistent with the industry program objectives and criteria would be in l
compliance with the requirements of this regulation.
An existing Memorandum of Agreement between INP0 and the Commission
[
assures that the NRC will be made aware of any modifications or updates to the industry's program objectives and criteria which may warrant any modification-in the Commission's position expressed above.
The NRC will continue to monitor the industry accreditation process by:
?
26
-l i
6
i 1
(a) Nominating individuals who are not on.the NRC staff. to serve as-members of the National Nuclear Accrediting Board with full-voting privileges; 4
(b) Having an NRC staff member attend and observe selected National Nuclear Accrediting Board meetings with the INP0 staff or the utility representatives; (c) Having NRC staff observe INPO accreditation team site visits; (d)
Reviewing any modifications in the program objectives and criteria as currently described in the National Academy for Nuclear Training document-f "The Objectives and Criteria for Accreditation of Training in the Nuclear Power Industry" (ACAD 91-015); and (e) Verifying licensee programs through the NRC inspection process.
As noted above, the NRC has the ability to verify compliance with this regulation through the inspection program and will do so as appropriate.
In their inspections, the NRC staff will use Inspection Procedure 41500,
" Training and Qualification Effectiveness," which references the. guidance in NUREG-1220, Revision 1,* " Training Review Criteria and Procedures." Based on NRC inspections conducted to date, the Commission believes that the criteria developed by the industry provides sufficiently clear guidance to allow applicants and licensees to implement effective training programs in.
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.
' Copies of NUREG-1220, Rev. I may be purchased from the Superintendent of 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 f
available for public, inspection or copying at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., (Lower LevelfoLthEGelman:BU11dnigpWashington, DC.
27
~
+
m
.m..
- =.
k 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 b'enefits of -
i standardization could involve the standardization of some types of training j
associated with the 10 CFR Part 52 design certification. Therefore, nothing l
in this rule is intended to preclude standard training programs being l
r developed or implemented by 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 a result, there could be a pool of technicians trained by the vendor on the certified design available for hire at a nuclear.
f 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.
Thus, the requirements for personnel training programs prescribed by 9 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 programs are not governed by this rule and that the licensee is ultimately ^
responsible for ensuring that personnel are qualified.
d Applicants for a Combined License l
Part 52 is being amended to require that applicants for combined i
licenses establish, implement, and maintain training programs in accordance
.j with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.120.
28
i Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact:
Availability The Commission has determined under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in Subpart A of i
10 CFR Part 51, that this rule is not a major Federal action significantly-l 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 contributor to actual or potential system failures that may be precursors to accidents. With this rulemaking, the NRC is emphasizing the need to ensure that industry personnel training programs are based upon job performance requirements.
Personnel who are subjected to training based on job performance requirements should be able'to perform their jobs more effectively, and with fewer errors. Therefore, the environmental effect of 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. (Lower Level),
Washirgton, DC 20555.
Single copies of the environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact are available from Rajender Auluck, Office of i
Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone:
(301) 492-3794.
t P
t 29
~
~
v.
h Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwerk Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
These requirements were approved by the Office of Management and Budget approval numbers 3150-0011 and 3150-0151.
Public reporting' burden for this collection 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 response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining thel data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to th) Desk Officer, Office.of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-3019, (3150-0011), Office of l
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Regulatory Analysis A regulatory analysis has been prepared,pn'this final regulation.
The analysis examines the values (benefits) and impacts (costs) of implementing
.i the regulation for personnel training and qualification. This analysisis available for inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW.
(Lower Level), Washington, DC 20555.
Single copies of the analysis may be obtained from Rajender Auluck (see ADDRESSES heading).
30
.. - ~
g Regulatory Flexibility Certification As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1989, 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final rule primarily affects the companies that own and operate light-water nuclear power reactors 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.
Backfit Analysis i
The Commission has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does l
not apply to this final rule because these amendments are mandated by,5'ection 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. Section 10226.
?
Therefore, a backfit analysis is not required for this rule.
List of Subjects in-+O-CfR rart 50 -
/u csv A / so-Antitrust, Classified information, Criminal penaltf(}( Fire protection, i
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Radiation protection, Reactor siting criteria, Reporting and j
recordkeeping requirements.
r I
31
?
l
.titt vf"5uojdc h r-t-52 '
j y o c,< /%/5)-
7 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 site, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Standard design, Standard design certification.
g//
-Q(I for the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the -
3 'qw lc Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 552Od as amended, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, and 5 U.S.C.t553, the NRC is y
(, proposing _to' adopt th following amendments to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 as 7
follows:
PART 50 - DOMESTIC LICENSING OF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES 1.
The authority citation for 10 CFR Part 50 is revised to read as follows:
Authority:
Secs. 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 182, 183, 186, 189, 68 Stat, 936, 937, 938, 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 32
~
.. - ~ -..
i 4
Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332). Sections 50.13, 50.54(dd), and 50.103 also issued under sec. 108, 68 Stat. 939, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2138).
Sections.50.23,.
50.35, 50.55, and 50.56 also-issued under sec. 185, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C.
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 c.-
of 1982, 42 U.S.C.
10226.
Appendix F also issued under sec. 187, 68 Stat.
955 (42 U.S.C. 2237).
For the purposes of sec. 223, 68 Stat. 958, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2273);
ls 50.46(a) and (b), 50.54(c) and 50.120 are issued under sec. 161b, 161i and 1610, 68 Stat. 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(b)); - s s 50.7(a), 50.10(a)-(c),
50.34(a) and (e), 50.44(a)-(c), 50.46(a) and (b), 50.47(b), 50.48(a),.(c),.
(d), and (e), 50.49(a), 50.54(a), (i), (i) (1), (1)-(n), (p), (q), (t),-(v),
and (y), 50.55(f), 50.55a(a), (c)-(e), (g), and (h), 50.59(c), 50.60(a),
50.62(c), 50.64(b), and 50.80(a) and (b) are issued under sec. 161i, 68 Stat.
949, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)); and ls 50.49(d), (h), and (j), 50.54 (w), (z), (bb), (cc), and (dd), 50.55(e), 50.59(b), 50.61(b), 50.62(b),
50.70(a), 50.71(a)-(c) and (e), 50.72(a), 50.73(a) and (b), 50.74, 50.78, and 50.90 are issued under sec. 1610, 68 Stat. 950, as amended (42 U.S.C.
2201(o)).
33
I i
2.
In't 50.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows':
1 50.8 Information collection reouirements: OMB anoroval.
_ i (b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this-part appear in 65 50.30, 50.33, 50.33a, 50.34, 50.34a, 50.35, 50.36, 50.36a, 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, K, M, N, 0, Q, and R.
3.
Section 50.120 is added to read as follows:
1 50.120 Trainino and oualification of nuclear power plant 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 5 50.21(b) or i 50.22; i
(b) Requirements.
Each nuclear power plant applicant, by (180 days after the effective date of the rule) or'18 months _ prior to fuel load, j
l whichever is later, and each nuclear power plant licensee, by (180' days after 3
the effective date of the rule), shall establish, implement, and maintain a i
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:
(1)
Non-licensed operator.
(2)
Shift supervisor.
i (3)
34 1
,--.-.w
,m.
.g (4) -Instrument and control technician.
-(5)
Electrical maintenance personnel.
(6) Mechanical maintenance personnel.
(7) Radiological protection technician.
l (8) Chemistry technician.
J (9)
Engineering support personnel.
// (f---The training program must incorporate the instructional requirements necessary to provide qualified personngl to operate and maintain the facility in a safe manner in all modes of operation. The training program must be developed so as to be in compliance with.the facility license, including all technical specifications and applicable regulations. The training program must be periodically evaluated and revised as appropriate to reflect industry experience as well as changes to the facility, procedures, regulations, and-quality assurance requirements. The training program must be periodically a
reviewed by licensee management for effectiveness.
Sufficient records must;be-2 maintained and kept available for NRC inspection to verify the adequacy of the-
}
program.
PART 52 - EARLY SITE PERMITS; STANDARD DESIGN CERTIFICATIONS; AND COMBINED LICENSES FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS-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.
35
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 5 52.8, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
5 52.8 Information collection reauirements: OMB'aporoval.
4 l
(b) The approved information collection requirements contained in this part appear in is 52.15, 52.17, 52.29, 52.45, 52.47, 52.57, 52.75, 52.77, l
52.78, and 52.79t 6.
Section 52.78 is added to read as follows:
9 52.78 Contents of apolications: trainina and aualification of nuclear power plant personnel.
(a) Applicability. The requirements of this section apply only to the
. personnel associated with the operating phase of the combined licenses ~.
(b) The application-must demonstrate compliance with the requirements for training programs established in 1 50.120 of this chapter.
l Dated at Rockville, MD,.this day of 1992.
j l
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
)
l Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.
l 36
a arc og?
+
3-4' 'Y n
UNITED STATES
- E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
8 WASHINGTON D C. 20555 K.'...*,/
The Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
,gawh n Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a o of a final rule to be published in the Federal Reaister that contains g Yo 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52.
This rulemaking meets the directives contained in Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 which required NRC to promulgate regulations or other appropriate regulatory guidance establishing instructional requirements for civilian nuclear power plant personnel. This rule replaces the March 20, 1985, NRC Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuciear Power Plant Personnel, and its subsequent 1988 amendment, which were intended to meet the Congressional mandate.
The NRC undertook this rulemaking in order to comply with a decision made in April 1990 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which g'<"ciinBild&the NRC did not meet the intent of Section 306 when the. Agency published a nonbinding policy statement rather than regulations.
The NRC believes that the additions to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 are fully responsive to the spirit and intent of Section 306 and offer an integrated approach to the concerns highlighted by Congress.
This rule would require that each applicant for and holder of an operating license for a nuclear power plant establish, implement, and maintain, a training program for nuclear power plant personnel.
It would also require that the training program provide qualified personnel to operate and maintain the facility in a safe manner in all modes of operation.
Licensees would be required to have the training programs in place no later than 180 days after the effective date of this rule. Applicants for an operating license would be required to have the training programs in place no later than 18 months prior to fuel load, or 180 days after the effective date of the rule, whichever comes later.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking i
cc:
Representative John J. Rhodes
ncy hs UNITED STATES
- 3. %([/ E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- hL f
WASHINGTON, o.C. 20555
\\.v....f l
The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce r-l United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 y
44 # y f f'
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a c_opyg(to 10 CFR Parts a final rule to be published in the Federal Reoister that contains 'dHT'tl on 50 and 52.
This rulemaking meets the directives con ained~in Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 which required NRC to promulgate regulations or other appropriate regulatory guidance establishing instructional requirements for civilian nuclear power plant personnel.
This rule replaces the March 20, 1985, NRC Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, and its subsequent 1988 amendment, which were intended to meet the Congressional mandate.
The NRC undertook this rulemaking in order to comply with a decision made in April 1990 bLthe U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which
%y*7 ' conclhdeD the NRC did not meet the intent of Section 306 when the Agency published a nonbinding policy statement rather than regulations. The NRC believes that the additions to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 are fully responsive to the spirit and intent of Section 306 and offer an integrated approach to the concerns highlighted by Congress.
This rule would require that each applicant for and holder of an operating license for a nuclear power plant establish, implement, and maintain, a training program for nuclear power plant personnel.
It would also require that the training program provide qualified personnel to operate and maintain the facility in a safe manner in all modes of operation.
Licensees would be i
required to have the training programs in place no later than 180 days after j
the effective date of this rule. Applicants for an operating license would be required to have the training programs in place no later than 18 months prior to fuel load, or 180 days after the effective date of the rule, whichever comes later.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking cc:
Representative Carlos J. Moorhead
a ucu
["
UNITED STATES n
3'
.i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20565 f
....+
The Honorable Bob Graham, Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation Committee on Environment and Public Works United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 fAvr.h""Y
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed for the information of the subcommittee is a copy oLa final rule to be published in the Federal' Reaister that contains (aMTtions) to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52.
This rulemaking meets the directives contained in Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 which required NRC to promulgate regulations or other appropriate regulatory guidance establishing instructional requirements for civilian nuclear power plant personnel.
This rule replaces the March 20, 1985, NRC Policy Statement on Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel, and its subsequent 1988 amendment, which were intended to meet the Congressional mandate.
The NRC undertook this rulemaking in order to comply with a decision made in April 1990 by~the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which dbvcbiicludeethe NRC did not meet the intent of Section 306 when the Agency published a nonbinding policy statement rather than regulations. The NRC believes that the additions to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 are fully responsive to the spirit and intent of Section 306 and offer an integrated approach to the concerns highlighted by Congress.
This rule would require that each applicant for and holder of an operating license for a nuclear power plant establish, implement, and maintain, a training program for nuclear power plant personnel.
It would also require that the training program provide qualified personnel to operate and maintain the facility in a safe manner in all modes of operation.
Licensees would be required to have the training programs in place no later than 180 days after the effective date of this rule. Applicants for an operating license would be required to have the training programs in place no later than 18 months prior to fuel load, or 180 days after the effective date of the rule, whichever comes later.
Sincerely, Dennis K. Rathbun, Director Office of Congressional Affairs
Enclosure:
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking cc:
Representative Alan K. Simpson
NEW REQUIREMENIS FOR TRAINING AND QUALIFICATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERSONNEL The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is amending its regulations to_ include requirements for training and qualification of nuclear power plant personnel.
This rule meets the directives contained in Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982.
Section 306 directed the NRC to promulgate regulations or other appropriate guidance establishing instructional requirements for the training of civilian nuclear power plant personnel.
This rule requires applicants for and holders of a license to operate nuclear power plants to establish and use a systems approach to training (SAT) in developing training programs for nuclear power plant personnel that consider all modes of operation. The systems approach to training has been used successfully by the military and in other technical areas where human performance and safety are primary concerns.
The nuclear industry has also-been using the SAT process for much of the past decade. Thi_s rule builds upon i
current industry initiatives related to training and qualification.
Under this approach, there would be a systematic analysis of job performance requirements to identify learning objectives.
Following the analysis, training programs would be designed and developed to address the identified learning objectives. After delivery of the training, trainees would be evaluated on the' basis of performance standards outlined in the-learning objectives.
Training programs would then consistently be evaluated j
l 2.
.and revised, as necessary, based on measurement and observation of trainee j
performance on the job.
q
\\
- Applicants and licensees would also have to assure that all affected personnel have job and task qualifications commensurate with the levels and types of responsibilities assigned to them. Job and Task Qualification requirements for each affected position would be derived from the analysis phase of the systems approach to training.
Licensees would be required to have the training programs in place no later than 180 days after the effective date of this rule. Applicants for an operating license would be~ required to have the training programs in place no later than 18 months prior to fuel load, or 180 days after the effective date of this rule, whichever comes later.
i 4
L s
[
t b
i f
i t
. i
pi I
- c
ll
- l
)
1
- 1 i
t i
a J
l t
.: i
.-s l
i e
7
. i
. i Enclosure I t
Public Announcement 4
-4
- .e I
h
. 4 1
t
'.{
t Y
t I
s
?.
p s
t e-e me N s-
+ -, -,
-.e u.
-en,
.s-
~ -- --- -- -