United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Protecting People and the Environment

Nuclear Security Personnel for Power Plants, Content and Review Procedures for a Security Training and Qualification Program (Generic Letter 78-30)

                                                              GL 78-30
                                UNITED STATES 
                        NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 
                            WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 

                                August 4, 1978 

All Power Reactor Licensees


This letter and enclosed NUREG-0219 titled "Nuclear Security Personnel for
Power Plants, Content and Review Procedures for a Security Training and
Qualification Program," dated July 1973, are being sent to all licensees
authorized to operate a nuclear power reactor and to all applicants with
applications for a license to operate or construct a power reactor.

Within the next few weeks the Commission is scheduled to publish in final form
amendments to 10 CFR 73 to impose upgraded qualification training, and
equipping requirements for security personnel protecting against theft of
special nuclear material and industrial sabotage of nuclear facilities or
nuclear shipments.  The enclosed document provides a basis on which commercial
nuclear reactor applicants and licensees can develop acceptable programs to
implement these new requirements.

A second draft of this document was published for comment on April 21, 1978
and as a result the staff has considered the comments received and
incorporated many changes.  The following summerizes the major comments
received and how the NRR staff addressed them in preparing the final document:

1.    Approximately one third of the 32 that commented stated that the sample
plan indicated an excessive amount of detail and the guidance should not
exceed that currently given for safety related training.

      The final document contains only 25 pages of guidance (Parts 1&2); the
remainder is a sample plan.  The sample was provided to assist the applicants
and licensees in preparation of a plan based on a new appraoch.  As noted in
item 3 below, the sample should not be considered a requirement.

      The staff reformated the sample plan to reduce the amount of detail and
removed many tasks based on the ratings submitted in reponse to the requrest
in Draft 2.  This resulted in a reduction of 46% in the number of pages
devoted to performance objectives (173 vs. 94) and a reduction of 44% in the
number of performance objectives (344 vs. 191).  A further reduction should be
realized when the site analysis is completed, since the sample plan includes
many tasks that are not appropriate for all sites.



                                    - 2 -

2.    Many comments stated that the number of onsite evaluations by the NRC
was excessive (i.e., 1 by NRR every 2 years and 3 each year by I&E).

      The I&E schedule set forth in the draft was based on the established
frequency of onsite I&E physical security inspections withthe assumption that
these inspections would be expanded to include training and personnel
qualification.  However, all references to I&E inspections would be expanded
to include training and personnel qualification.  However, all references to
I&E inspection have now been deleted from the final version since this
document addresses NRR policy only. 

3.    Some commented that although we state that each site is required to
develop a qualification program based on a site specific job analysis, that
hte NRR reviewers would treat the sample plan in NUREG-0219 as the only
acceptable approach.

      The NRR staff feels that the sample plan provided valuable guidance and
should remain in the document.  However, the final version was revised to
stress that the sample is not a requirement.  One example is found on page 1-1
and reads:

            "It must be stressed that it is the responsibility on each site,
            using the methodology described in this document, to identify its
            site specific taks, elements, and performance objectives.  The
            security program selected must evaluate each individual's ability
            to implement the site approved physical security and contingency
            plans.  Training and evaluation are not done for their own sake.

            The sample qualification plan found in part 3 should not be
            considered a requirement, but only a guide;  Each specific site
            plan is reviewed on its own merits."

4.    Other comments stated that tasks shown in the sample were too extensive. 
They indicated that the sample program exceeded that required by most military
and police organizations and/or the requirements to meet the 73.55 threat
level.  A few commented that the type of response indicated in the sample plan
is outside the responsibility and capabilities of private security.

      The applicants and licensees are required to identify in their
qualification plan only those security tasks critical to successful
implementation of the site contingency and physical security plans.  If a
licensee can develop acceptable contingency plans that meet the threat and do
not require police or military tactics, then the tactical tasks can be
deleted.  However, it must be realized that the military and police are the
only organizations with experience dealing with such problems. The vast
majority of the military and police related tasks contained in the sample are
at the basic training level.


                                    - 3 -

5.    Finally, a few commented that the NRC should hold working sessions with
the utilities to develop its detailed requirements.

      Although the actual development of training and qualification plans are
the responsibility of each licensee, NRR is planning to hold a series of
workshops with the utilities to develop a mutual understanding of how to
implement the methodology described in NUREG-0219.  These workshops will be
small and devoted to actual plan developments.

Additional copies of NUREG-0219 can be obtained from the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 at current prices.


                                      James R. Miller, Assistant Director
                                        for Reactor Safeguards
                                      Division of Operating Reactors 

cc w/o enclosure:
Service List

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Monday, May 13, 2013