ML20209A819

Denial of Petition for Rulemaking PRM-50-41 Requesting That NRC Adopt Specific Regulations or Other Regulatory Guidance for Training & Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Plant Personnel

ML20209A819
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/14/1987
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
FRN-51FR17361, RULE-PRM-50-41 NUDOCS 8702030452
Download: ML20209A819 (23)

Text

~

DCCKET MUMBER

~

PETITION RULE PRM 63-4/

CO (5/FA l'7360 DOCKETED unc NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR PART 50 y,'.

[ Docket No. PRM-50-41]

PUBLIC CITIZEN; DENIAL OF PETITION FOR RULEMAKING AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Denial of petition for rulemaking.

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is denying a petition for rulemaking filed on behalf of Public Citizen by Eric Glitzenstein, Attorney for Public Citizen, and Ken Bossong, Director, Critical Mass Energy Project (Petitioner). The Petitioner requests that, to comply with the mandate of Section 306 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (the NRC Training Authorization Section) , NRC adopt specific regulations or other regulatory guidance setting forth detailed l requirements for training and fitness for duty of nuclear power pinnt personnel. NRC is denying the petition, among other reasons, because it has determined that the statute does not cover fitness for duty and, with respect to training, that it provides NRC with flexibility to issue the regulatory guidance in the form of a policy statement.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition, public comments, and NRC's denial l letter are available for public inspection or copying for a fee at N R C's Public Document Room, 1717 !! Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20555.

aad.70'wdsm 8702030452 870114

1. wd?

PDR PRM j S0-41 PDR

s 0

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas F. Dorian, Esq. , Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555; telephone: (301) 492-8690.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Commission is concerned that the Petitioner's assertions could cause misunderstandings about the Commission's policy statements on fitness for ,

duty and on training and wishes to use this opportunity to clarify any misconceptions. The Commission will provide in full the Petitioner's arguments, the arguments of the opponents of the petition, and its own determinations so that all of the arguments are presented clearly and in order that the two policy statements and their backgrounds can be better understood.

The Petition l

The Petitioner believes that NRC has failed to fulfill its statutory obliga-l tions under Section 306 of the Nuclear Uaste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA)

(the NRC Training Authorization Section), 42 U.S.C 10226, 19 Stat. 2201 at 2262-2263, Pub. L.97-425, and that the statutory deadline for compliance has long since passed. The Petitioner contends that this fa!!ure results in increased danger to the benith and safety of the public frem inadequately trained nuclear power plant personnel. It urges NRC '

adopt specific regulations or other regulatory guidance setting forth

s detailed requirements for training and fitness for duty of nuclear power plant personnel.

Basis for the Petition The Petitioner bases its petition on the statutory mandate of Section 306 of the NWPA which requires various NRC actions by January 7, 1984, as follows:

SEC. 306. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TRAINING AUTHORIZATION.--The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is authorized and directed to promulgate regulations, or other appropriate Commission regula-tory guidance, for the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear powerplant operators , supervisors, technicians and other appropriate operating personnel.

Such regulations or guidance shall establish simulator training requirements for applicants for civilian nuclear power-plant operator licenses and for operator requali-fication programs: requirements governing NRC admin-istration of requalification examinations; requirements for operating tests at civilian nuclear powerplant simulators , and instructional requirements for civilian nuclear power-plant licensee personnel training pro-gram s. Such regulations or other regulatory guidance l shall be promulgated by the Commission within the 12-month period following enactment of this Act, and the Commission within the 12-month period following enactment of this Act shall ruhmit a report to Congress setting forth the actions the Commission has taken with respect to fulfilling its obifrntions under this section.

i The Petitioner contends that the Commission's March 20, 1985, Policy Statement on " Training and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel" (50 FR 11147) and its then p roposed, now final, Policy Statement on

~ _ _ . _. _ ___

_4-

" Fitness for Duty of Power Plant Personnel" (51 FR 27921, August 4,1986) are legally insufficient to fulfill NRC's obligations under Section 306.

With respect to fitness for duty (on which NRC had not published a final policy statement when it docketed the petition on April 17, 1986), the Peti-tioner states "that the NRC has totally abandoned its responsibilities under section 306."

The Petitioner argues that the Commission's Training and Qualification Policy Statement does not comply with the statric in three ways. First, it asserts that the Policy Statement gives five elements of an acceptable training program that are vague and general and fail to set forth any specific standards against which compliance can be measured or enforced.

Further, the Petitioner contends that because these five elements do not outline " requirements for personnel training programs" they do not comport with Congress' intent in enacting Section 306.

l l

Second, the Petitioner insists that NPC's endorsement of the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations' (INPO) accreditation programs, instead of NRC's promulgation of its own training requirements, does not comply with the statute. The Pet'tioner mentions in this context Senator Weicker's statement that notes ". .. the shortcomings of relyingr only upon IliPO or other existing institutions." See Cong. Rec. S15643 (Dec. ?0,198?). The Petitioner also contends that NR C's endorsenert of INPO's accreditation program sacrifices public participation in the development of regulations or

regulatory guidance and public access to documents reflecting licensees' implementation of these requirements.

Finally, the Petitioner argues that the Training and Qualification Policy Statement does not allow for adequate monitoring of the effectiveness of a training program because (1) the five elements are ugue and do not provide adequate standards against which to measure an individual licensee's progress or to evaluate the effectiveness of INPO's program as a whole; (2) it provides only for NRC monitoring of licensees that achieve INPO accreditation and does not provide for NRC monitoring of licensees with the most severe training problems; and (3) NRC has not retained authority to ensure prospectively that each licensee implements adequate training programs and that all achieve accreditation within a specific time.

Public Comments on the Petition and NRC Responses NRC published in the Federel Register on May 12, 10P6 (51 FR 17361), a notice that the petition for rulemaking had been filed. Interested persons were invited to submit written comments or suggestions about the petition by July 11, 1986. NRC received 21 comments in response to the notice, 20 from utilities and their various representative organizations opposing the petition and a short letter from enother group supporting it. The latter organization states in essence that it is concerned that NRC monitors only licensees with INPO accreditatien and not those with the most severe training problems.

Fitness for Duty With respect to fitness for duty, many of the opponents of the petition point to the words and legislative history of Section 306, stating that neither mentions policies for administration of fitness for duty programs or broader, more generic continuing observation programs. Several commenters indicate that the Petitioner is incorrect in stating that the Commission has abandoned its responsibilities in this area and say that apparently the Petitioner is unaware of NRC's ongoing efforts which provide guidance end direction to utilities with nuclear power programs and make rulemaking unnecessary.

The commenters note that the Commission approved a fitness for duty policy statement on June 25,1986 (51 FR 27921, August 4,1986) and that NRC guidance on this issue has existed for many years. They disclose that the Nuclear Utility Management and Resources Comm.ttee (NUMARC), an organization composed of the top officers of all utilities with nuclear power plants, proposed to NRC during the summer of 1984 a two-year triel period for the development and implementation of fitness for duty guidelines at all of their plarts, to be evaluated by IMPO. They indicate that in October 1984 NRC began working with the industry to evalunto this proposal and that all nuclear power reector licenrees committed to review and upgrade their programs, as necessary. Further.

i the industry, acting on its initiative, instituted routine INPO evaluations of each utility's implementaticn of a fitness for duty program. The

commenters stress that in developing its program, each utility has used the guidelines of the Edison Electric Institute, "EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty Policy Development," described in the Policy Statement and that NUMARC and INPO have kept the Commission apprised of the ongoing INPO evaluations in public briefings.

Training and Qualifications The comments on the Petitioner's three basic contentions are provided below.

First Contention With respect to the Petitioner's first contention that the Policy Statement provides only five vague and general elements of an acceptable training program and fails to set forth any specific standards with which compliance can be measured, monitored, and enforced, mt,st of the commenters point out that the five elements are based upon detailed accreditation criteria developed by INPO and reviewed by NRC. They argue that the Policy Statement provides the necessary NRC guidance for the industry to imple-ment acceptable training programs while allowing sufficient flexibility to bring about self-improvements in nuclear training prcgrams and per.conne qualifications.

One commenter notes that Section 306 does not specify the degree of detail that the regulation or regulatory guidance must contain or require that detailed acceptance criteria be included. It argues, therefore, that the Petitioner's contention that the Policy Statement is vague, general, and lacks specific standards and requirements is a " subjective opinion" and is not a basis for measuring the Policy Statement against the statute.

Another commenter notes that the Policy Statement was formally issued more than a year before the petition was filed. During this period, the industry has relied heavily on the Policy Statement and has dedicated time and resources to comply with its intent; the same period in which the Petitioner apparently did nothing to challenge the NRC's decision.

The commenters generally contend that the Policy Statement and NRC's own extensive involvement in related matters , such as licensed operator requalification examinations and routine training inspections, provide for a thorough NRC overview of trrining and accreditation p rocesses. This overview includes, among other things listed in the Policy Statement ,

(1) NRC observation of site visits by an INPO accrediting team; (2) NRC nomination of merabers to che National Nuclear Accrediting Board (this board, which is composed of mer.ibers from the academic community and the nucIcar and other indrstries, werds or defers accreditation of individua' utility training programs); (3) periedic accompaniment of INPO on selected plant evaluation visits; (4) NRC post-accreditation audits at utilities , in accordance with NUREG-1220, " Training Review Criteria and Procedures,"

July 1986, to ensure that the accreditation process is effective (the criteria are identical to the five elements in the Policy Statement and the proce-dures describe the systematic review process to ensure the effectiveness of each element); (5) periodic training inspections by NRC's five Regions; and (6) a training summary evaluation included as part of the NRC Systematic Assessment Report of Licensee Performance (SALP). They suggest that such close NRC monitoring indicates that the Commission is not simply endorsing INPO's accreditation programs as claimed by the .

Petitioner. These commenters also note that improvements obtained thus far in utility training programs provide evidence that the intent of Section 306 is being met, including better focused management control, more and better training staff, and irrproved and expanded training facilities and equipment.

Many commenters also argue that the Policy Statement provides NRC

[midance on training and qualification and the basis for NRC's oversight of I

the industry's prograras. The Policy Statement encompasses the elements of performance-based training and provides the basis to ensure that licensecs' personnel have qualifications commensurate with the performance requirements of their jobs. They contend that tasks performed vary widely and that, therefore, a rule requiring detailed training program standards v'culd have been inappropriate. They note that NPC's own experience has shown that technical details for resolution of specific issues are best handled at an administrative level below that of rules and i

j regulations. They, cite various examples of documents that address the l

training issue and are in addition to INPO programs, including current Regulatory Guide 1.8, " Personnel Selection and Training"; ANSI F18.1 (1971), " Selection and Training of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel"; ANS 3.1 (1981), " Selection, Qualification, and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Planta"; ANS 3.5 (1985), Nuclear Power Plant Simulators for Use in Operator Training"; and NUREG-1021, " Operator Licensing Examiner Standards. " They maintain that to attempt to impose detailed requirements through a regulation would be a needless and inappropriate burden on both licensee and NRC resources: needless, because the desired effect of improved training is already being obtained by the current system and N RC's Policy Statement , including NRC's guidance documents, industry standards, INPO accreditation , and NRC's undiminished enforcement authority; and inappropriate, because of the many plant-specific circum-stances that would cause many licensees to be affected unequally and in some cases unfairly by a generic rule.

Second Contention With respect to the Petitioner's second contention that the Policy Stateacnt on Training and Qualification is legally insufficient to fulfill NWPA's statutory muldate, most of the twenty commenters argue in detail that Section 306 cIcarly provides NRC with alternatives on the best way to accomplish Congress' intent. They maintain that Congress directed the Commission in Section 306 to establish instructional requirements for several categories of personnel either through a regulation or through 1

l more general guidance, leaving it to NRC to decide which option it wants to adopt. In this regard, one commenter makes detailed arguments about the legislation, showing that the legislation gave NRC a wide degree of latitude, flexibility, and discretion on the manner and scope of its compliance vith the statute. Both this and another commenter declare that an interpretation of Section 306 is not dependent on one statement made by one member of Congress. The commenter also argues that INPO accredita-tion of utility training programs would probably have been a central feature of the Commission's final rule and that, when such accreditation is completed, the Petitioner will have received the equivalent of the relief sought in the petition because accreditation would probably have taken two years by either the rulemaking or policy statement route.

Several commenters explain that they think that the Policy Statement, when taken together with NRC's present and proposed rules and guidance, is more than sufficient to provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that personnel at r.uclear power plants will perform their jobs in a safe i

! and ccmpetent manner to protect the public health and safety and, at the same time, permit utilities to develop and implement plant-specific training programs. One commenter stresses that the five elements contained in the Policy Statement are professionally accepted components of any training or educational pursuit and that the Commission's proposed revision to 10 CFR l

Part 55, " Operators' Licenses," incorporates these etcments.

Another commenter discusses the proposed revision to Part 55 and the three proposed regulatory guides related to Part 55: R.G. 1.8

" Qualifications and Training Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants," R.G.

1.134 " Medical Evaluation of Nuclear Facility Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses," and R.G. 1.149 " Nuclear Power Plant Simulation Facilities for Use in Operator License Examinations." The commenter points out that a proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on November 26, 1984 (49 FR 46428). It sought to clarify the regulations for the issuance of licenses to operators and senior operators; to revise the requirements and scope of written examinations and operating tests for operators and senior operators , including a requirement for a simulation facility; to codify procedures for the administration of requalification examinations; and to describe the form and content of operator license applications. The purpose of the preposed rule and regulatory guides was to improve the safety of nuclear power plant operations by improving the operator ifcensing process, including examination content; to provide NRC with er improved basis fcr administering operator Ifeensing examinations and conducting operating tests; and, to respond to the specific direction griven by Congress in Section 306, to promulgate regulations and regulatory guidance in the area of examinations. (The NRC staff proposal for a final rule can be found in SECY-86-348, November 21, 1986.) The commenter argues that it is crly through such an approach to training, one thet allows differences in various circumstances , that effective training can result; indeed , an overly restrictive rule would ensure compliance, but may not give encouragement to improvements beyond the scope of the rule.

Still another contends that many utilities are already well on their way to implementing the requirements in NRC's proposed revision to Part 55, and the regulatory guidance, described above.

Many commenters argue that NRC's decision to issue the Policy Statement instead of a rule was based on a number of public meetings and inter-actions between the industry and NRC throughout 1984. They emphasize that industry representatives, in presentations to the Commission on proposed NRC training regulations, stated that the regulations were not in the best interests of nuclear safety and reliability and, in effect, vrould have undermined industry initiatives in training and accreditation underway since 1980. They explain that the industry, recognizing the importance of training and accreditation activities and drawing upon one of the principal recommendations of the Kemeny Commission on the accident at Three Mile Island, established training and accreditation as one of INPO's key programs and committed itself to upgrade training activities. They stress that N F C's Policy Statement recognizes the significant progress achieved by industry initiatives through NUMARC, INPO, and the associated National Academy for Nuclear Training in developing programs to improve nuclear utility training and personnel qualifications, and that the Policy Statenent has provided the industry an opportunity to demonstrate contfrued progress.

Third Contention Most of the commenters opposing the petition argue that the Petitioner is wrong on all three counts of its final contention. First, they contend that the five elements do provide a standard against which training programs can be measured when viewed in light of NRC's existing regulations and regulatory guides. Title 10, CFR, Part 55, " Operators' Licenses ,"

contains the procedures and criteria for the issuance of licenses to and -

requalification programs for operators and senior operators. Currently, this part and Regulatory Guide 1.8 detail the education, experience, and training requirements for individuals to be sdministered examinations for operator or senior operator licenses. The training programs for these individuals are submitted to NRC for review and approval as part of an applicant's Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). The commenters stress that NRC also evaluates the effectiveness of licensees' training programs based on examination results of applicants for operator and senior operator licenses. This is in effect an audit of the effectiveness of licensees

• programs. Further. NRC administration of a percentage of the recuired annual requalification examinations is an additional audit of the effectiveness of the training programs. Based on the results of these examinations, NRC may take other actions to have reasonable assurance that licensed personnel are being requalified to perform their tcsks in a safe and competent menner. The commenters emphasi: c that, t herefore ,

the Commission has knowledge about applicant s' and licensees' training programs for operators and senior operators.

O With respect to the second part of the Petitioner's final contention, several commenters argue that the Policy Statement is based, in part, on the commitment of each utility with a nuclear power plant to submit its training program to INPO for accreditation. They note that NRC is mindful about how these commitments are being met, among other ways, through its review of periodic INPO accreditation status reports and NRC briefings.

One commenter emphasizes that NRC remains responsible for evaluating the implementation of improved training programs to ensure that required _

results are achieved, and argues that the Atomic Energy Act provides broad authority for the Commission to take prompt action should NRC determine that a facility of an NRC licensee is not operated in a manner that adequately protects the public health and safety. Others indice.te that (1) the Policy Statement specifienlly addresses NRC's enforcement policy, (2) that the Statement does not limit NRC's authority to conduct inspections or to take appropriate enforcement actions, and (3) that there f

is nothing in the Policy Statement which supports the Petitioner's statements that NRC will monitor only those facilities that have achieved INPO accreditation or that NRC has retained no authority to ensure that adequate training programs exist at individual facilities . The Policy i

Statement's enforcement provisions state:

Notwithstanding its Enforcement Policy in 10 CFR Part 2. Appendix C, 49 FR 8583 march 8,1984), the Commission will exercise sorr.e discretion in selecting appropriate enforcement action for violations involving training ir. Ifght of the NUA! ARC /INPO initiative.

Licensees who are making reasonable efforts in developing and irrpimenting the INPO/NUMARC programs described above vill generally not be cited for violations related to these programs, provided the

o violations, whether or not identified by NRC, are appropriately ccrrected in a timely manner. However, violations which are not corrected in a timely manner, violations of any applicable reporting requirement, and any willful violation may be subject to enforcement.

Any enforcement action taken during this grace period will be taken only with Commission concurrence. In addition to required reports and inspections, informa-tion requests under 10 CFR 50.54(f) may be made and enforcement meetings held to ensure understanding of corrective actions. Orders may be issued where necessary to achieve corrective actions on matters affecting plant safety. In brief, the NRC's decision to use discretion in enforcement in order to recognize industry initiatives in no way changes the NRC's atility to issue orders, call enforcement meetings or suspend licenses when a safety problem is found.

Nothing in this Policy Statement shall limit the authority of the NRC to conduct inspections as deemed

~

necessary and to take appropriate enforcement action when regrulatory requirements are not met.

Finally, with respect to the third part of the Petitioner's final contention, several commenters explain that there is a timetable for utilities to obtain INPO accreditation. Utilities have committed to submitting to INPO all of their self-evaluation reports by the end of 1986 Completion of the accreditation procesc usually takes about twelve to fifteen months after i

submittal of this report. In addition, these commenters point out that NRC has stated in the Policy Statement that it will revisit the entire training issue around March 20, 1987, two years from March 20,1985, the effective date of the Policy Statement.

i l

l

, _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ . . . _ . ~ _ , - _ . _ _ . - . . _ . _ _ , _ _ . - . .

Reasons for Denial The Commission believes that it has been responsive to Congress' mandate in Section 306. The Commission has determined that Section 306 does not cover fitness for duty; nonetheless, it has issued a policy statement on this topic, as mentioned above.

With respect to the training and qualifications of civilian nuclear power plant personnel, the issue raised by the Petitioner arises out of the language of Section 306. That language provides for the promulgation of regulations or of other appropriate Commission regulatory guidance. The Petitioner and one commenter believe that compliance with the statute requires enactment of legally binding regulations. The nuclear industry believes that NRC acceptance of INPO's accreditation program for training

! and qualifications by a policy statement meets the need for regulatory guidance. In deed , the industry argues that conversion of the voluntary effort into a compulsory regulation would be destructive of its veluntary efforts. In this connection, the Ifouse of Representatives Committee on Appropriations in reporting, on May 15, 1984, the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Bill, 1985, Report 08-755 to accompany li.R.

i 5653, at page 145, submitted the following view:

1 Reector Training and Operations l

The Committee is concerned that the NRC may inad-vertently undermine the initiatives of the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations. The NRC should carefully review its activities in the crea of reactor operations and training so as not to prevent the licenses [ sic]

from making needed improvements. The Committee agrees with the Precident's Kemeny Report that prescriptive and voluminous regulations can serve as a negative factor in nuclear safety. Therefore, the Committee urges the Commission in complying with Section 306 of the NWPA to develop alternatives to prescriptive regulations. The Committee does not agree with the Commission that the proposed training rule as currently formulated achieves this purpose.

Before analyzing Section 306, the Commission wishes to explain how it views a policy statement and its uses. The Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552(A)(1)(D) and (A)(2)(B)) requires an agency to publish its statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability in the Federal Register for guidance to the public. One of the recommenda-tions of the Administrative Conference of the United States is that an agency should articulate its policies through published policy statements.

1 CFR 305.71-3 (Recommendation No. 71-3). The Administrative Conference explains that a policy statement is an agency's indication of how it will exercise discret!on. 1 CFR 305.76-5 (Recor"nendation l'o.

76-5). See also 3 Mezines , Stein & Gruff. Administrative Law $ 15.04 (1982). A policy staterrent in and of itself provides guidance only and does not carry reguletory force or statutory force. A person cannot be cited for not "complyinF" trith a policy statement per se. A pollev statement, however, may explain how an agency interprets a statute or rule. See Pacific Gas t E!cetric Co. v. Federal Pnwer Commission, 50F F.2d 33, 38-9 (D.C. Cir. 1974) . In such cases, the agency can enforce that statute or rule in the wey it states it will in that statement.

Consequently, the Commission does not rely on policy statements in lieu of regulatory requirements imposed either by rule or by license condition.

The Commissien has not taken enforcement action against a licensee for failure to follow the guidance given in a policy statement because policy statements are not enforceable as such. If an unsafe situation arose at a licensed facility with respect to a matter covered by a policy statement, _

however, the Commission could issue an order under its general Atomic Energy Act authority. Such an order could require the licensee to take -

remedial action and impose appropriate license conditions governing matters otherwise covered by the policy statement.

NRC would not necessarily need a specific event to trigger action related to the policy statenent. It remains NRC's continued responsibility, as noted in both policy statements, to independently evaluate applicant development and licensee implementation of MPC's guidance to ensure that desired results are achieved. Fothing in any of NRC's policy statements limits NRC's authority or rcsponsibility to follow up on operational events or its enforcement authority when regrulatory requirements are not met .

For instance, in the Policy Statement On Training and Qualification, the Commission explained that it will evaluate the effectiveness of utility programs by, among other ways, direct inspections conducted by NRC's appraisal teams , rcsident insp(ctors and inspectors from its Periona.

O ffices , it alto stated that violations of any applicable reporting requirement or instances that potentf ally affect plant safety will be subject to NRC's enforcement process, if the Commission suspected that a licensee

were not developing or implementing adequate programs along the lines indicated in the Policy Statement, it could inspect the licensee and require information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) to determine whether the license should be modified, suspended or revoked. Thereafter, if the Commission found that the licensee's program were indeed inadequate, it could make, for instance, a public health and safety determination under which it could order modification of the license by inserting the elements of the Policy Statement as a condition of continued operation. .

Industry urged the Commission to allow the industry to demonstrate its initiative in the area of management and human resources. The Commission stated in its Policy Statement on Training erd Qualification that it would evaluate its own guidance and the industry's response for a fairly short period, i.e. , two years from its effective date. The Commission believes that it has not lost any time in the industry initiatives and that, in fact, it has Fained much that it could not have achieved using its owr.

i resources. The Commission also believes that the industry could achieve more , and could achieve it better and faster, if NRC allowed it 'to implement its own initiative with NRC guidelines rather than through a rule imposing upon it limited, minimum standards.

The Commission believes that Congress directed NRC in Section 300 te

ettablish instructional requirements for several categories of personnel either through a regulation of through regulatory guidance, leaving it to NRC's discretion to decide which regulatory approach to adopt. Section

O 306 in effect provides that the NRC is " directed to promulgate regulaticns, or other appropriate Commission regulatory guidance," which "shall establish . . . Instructional requirements for civilian nuclear powerplant licensee personnel training programs."

The Commission believes that " guidance" or " regulatory guidance" do not necessarily mean a mandatory, enforceable regulation, order or license condition. -

1 The Commission decided to withhold action on promulgating new training and qualifications regulations during a short evaluation period. During this period. NRC has been evaluating the results of the accreditation program to determine whether the industry's efforts ensure traininF and qualification's that meet or exceed the elements included in the Policy Statement and other Commission guidance documents. The Commission has not, however, stopped with issuance of the Policy Statement; it is in the process of issuing a revision to 10 CFR Part 55 and to the three regulatory guides described above.

To further assess license cancadates in a realistic job setting, NRC revised 10 CFR Part 55 to require that operating tests be conducted not only in oral walkthroughs of the plant and ir its control room but also in a simulation facility. This facility , which may include the plant , a plant-referenced simulator, or another simulation device, alone or in combination, is used to dernenstrate a candidate's understanding of and

J ability to perform essential job tasks. The Polley Statement and NRC's revision to Part 55 enhance the NRC licensing cyamination process. The facility licensee's systematic analysis of the job and learning objectives phases af the Systems Approach to Training are used by NRC as a basis for developing examinations. License candidate evaluations are based, therefore, in part, upon performance standards and evaluation criteria delineated in the objectives. Once licensed, individuals participate in requalification programs that also are based in part on learning objectives derived from the Systems Approach to Training. NRC's requalification program evaluations use informaticn devebped by its II.:ensees under the Policy Statement.

The Commission is also censidering a rule on degree requirements for operating staff at nuclear power plants. Though the rule is not addressed by Section 306, it is responsive to the concern about personnel qualification. In a related activity , the Commission published a Policy Statencnt on Engineering Expertise on Shift to ensure that adequate engineering and accident assessment expertise is provided to the shift supervisor (50 FR 43621, October 28, 1985).

In sum, the Commission believes that the industry's efforts to date have been productive. NRC has increased confidence in the industry's training process , because the industry is systematically analyzing job perfornance requirements. The Systems Approach to Training eppears to be working in the nuclear power industry. This training method is currently used ir.

o 0

technological environments wFcre human performance and safety concerns ~

are very important. Noteworthy examples include the military, the NAFA space program , and the field of aviation. NRC determined that its approach was consistent with that being used by INPO in training program evaluations for its accreditation process and, therefore, decided not to promulgate a rule but to issue the Policy Statement on Training and Oualification and to evaluate for a short while INPO's accreditation process. -

The Commission agrees that a highly prescriptive rule would have dampened the industry's enthusiasm and creativity and thereby set back its training efforts. It believes that, in light of the language of Section 306, it had a choice to choose the better of two means to achieve the statutory goal and that it has been responsive to Congress' intentions.

Accordingly, the Commission denies the petition.

1 Dated at Bethesda, Maryland , this 14th day of January . 1987.

1 For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, l

Vic~ tor Etello, Jr. ,-

l Executive Director for Operations.

i