POLICY ISSUE 

(Notation Vote) 

December 15, 2009 SECY-09-0183

FOR: The Commissioners 

FROM: R. W. Borchardt 

 Executive Director for Operations 

SUBJECT: PROPOSED MODIFICATION FOR INCLUDING QUALITY CONTROL AND 

QUALITY VERIFICATION PERSONNEL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SUBPART I 

OF 10 CFR PART 26 

PURPOSE: 

To request Commission approval for a modification to the portion of Staff Requirements 

Memorandum (SRM) M070417B to include the individuals who perform quality control and 

quality verification (QC/QV) under the same Subpart I provisions as individuals who perform 

maintenance functions specified in 10 CFR 26.4(a)(4).

BACKGROUND: 

In SECY-06-0244, “Final Rulemaking-10 CFR Part 26-Fitness-For-Duty-Programs,” the staff 

requested Commission approval to issue a final rule amending 10 CFR Part 26. The 

Commission approved the final rule, with comments, in SRM-M070417B. One comment, 

quoted below, directed the staff to expand the scope of 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, “Managing 

Fatigue” so that QC/QV activities are subject to the fatigue management provisions. 

“The staff should ensure that personnel who actually perform independent 

quality control/verification (QC/QV) checks under the licensee's NRC-approved 

Quality Assurance Program are subject to the same Subpart I provisions as 

operating personnel defined in category § 26.4(a)(1). If staff and OGC 

determine that this provision of the rule requires re-notice and comment under 

the APA, staff should issue the final rule without this provision. In that case, 

staff should separately initiate the additional appropriate noticing for this 

provision.” 

CONTACT: Michael A. Boggi, NRR/DIRS 

 301-415-5309
The Commissioners - 2 - 

The staff and the Office of General Counsel (OGC) subsequently concluded that the addition of 

QC/QV activities to the scope of the rule would require re-notice and comment under the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA). For that reason, the final rule was issued without this 

provision, and staff initiated an additional proposed rulemaking to address QC/QV activities. 

As part of the proposed rulemaking process, staff initiated development of a regulatory basis for 

the proposed rule change. To support the regulatory basis, staff sought input regarding the type 

of plant staff who conduct QC/QV activities under current Quality Assurance Programs. 

Consistent with the wording of the SRM, staff limited the search for information to the activities 

proscribed by 10 CFR 50, Appendix B, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants 

and Fuel Reprocessing Plants,” Criterion X, “Inspection.” The staff also performed several 

technical assessments to serve as the technical basis for the proposed rule. 

DISCUSSION: 

The staff solicited stakeholder input regarding the current structure of plant staff who conduct 

QC/QV inspections. Results indicated that 80 to 90 percent of licensees have a small group of 

full time QC/QV inspectors who are supplemented by individuals from the maintenance 

departments. Therefore, the individuals subject to the hours assigned to the QC/QV inspection 

function would include both dedicated QC/QV inspectors and the subset of maintenance 

department personnel who perform inspections under the licensee’s approved quality assurance 

program. 

Because of the overlap between inspection functions performed by maintenance personnel and 

inspection functions performed by the QC/QV personnel, industry representatives requested 

that the staff consider maintenance work hour controls (for individuals specified in 10 CFR 

26.4(a)(4)) rather than operations work hour controls (individuals specified in 10 CFR 26.4(a)(1)) 

in development of the proposed rulemaking package. The industry stated that this approach 

would have significant benefit with respect to the ease of implementation while meeting the 

objective of ensuring that personnel performing the QC/QV function were fit for duty with respect 

to fatigue. 

As part of developing a regulatory basis for a proposed rule, as directed by SRM-M070417B, 

staff conducted a comparative analysis. The analysis ranked select functions performed by 

each of the three major groups of individuals already subject to the work hour control provisions 

in Subpart I (i.e., operations, maintenance and security) and individuals who perform inspection 

functions1

. The functions were ranked with respect to how fatigue could potentially degrade 

performance of each of the functions along the dimensions of attention (vigilance), decision 

making, problem solving, and the ability to communicate and work as a team. Although fatigue 

affects individuals in many ways, these four dimensions were selected because they reflect 

skills sets that are important to maintaining the health, safety and security of the public. These 

 

1

 The remaining individuals subject to work hour controls – individuals performing health physics and chemistry duties required as 

members of the onsite emergency response organization minimum shift complement, and individuals who perform duties of a fire 

brigade member who is responsible for understanding the effects of a fire and fire suppressants on safe shutdown – were not 

included in this analysis. The work they perform that requires these individuals to be subject to work hour controls is performed 

primarily during emergency conditions, in contrast to the work activities of the operations, maintenance, security, and inspection 

personnel that are performed under both normal conditions and emergency conditions. Therefore, the affects of fatigue for these 

individuals on the four key dimensions cannot be effectively compared to operations, maintenance, security, or inspection functions. 
The Commissioners - 3 - 

dimensions were emphasized in the previous rulemaking which established Subpart I and work 

hour controls. The results of the analysis indicate that individuals performing security functions 

while fatigued would have the highest potential to affect the health, safety, and security of the 

public, followed by individuals performing operations, QC/QV inspection, and then maintenance 

functions. The only difference between the potential impact of QC/QV inspection and 

maintenance functions is that the work of the QC/QV inspectors is not reviewed; however, the 

QC/QV inspections are themselves a check of the original work and any impact would be the 

result of an error by both the maintenance and QC/QV inspection functions. Thus, the impact of 

the maintenance and QC/QV inspection functions is essentially equal. 

Based on this analysis the staff believes that the QC/QV inspection functions are aligned with 

functions performed by maintenance personnel, with respect to the effects of fatigue on the four 

key dimensions: sustaining attention, problem solving, decision making, and communicating and 

working as a team. Therefore, the results of the analysis and the current industry practice of 

supplementing QC/QV inspectors with individuals from the maintenance organization suggest 

that individuals who perform QC/QV inspection functions should be subject to the same work 

hour controls as individuals who perform maintenance functions. 

Implementing this conclusion would change the Commission’s direction for the Part 26 minimum 

day off requirement for individuals performing QC/QV inspection functions who work 12-hour 

shifts during normal plant operation and unit outages, as shown in the following table: 

Minimum Day Off Requirements 

(12-hour shifts) 

Normal Operations Outages 

SRM-M070417B 

(Operations) 2.5 days off per week 3 days off in each 15 day period 

Staff Proposal 

(Maintenance) 2 days off per week 1 day off per week 

RECOMMENDATION: 

The staff recommends that the Commission approve a modification to a portion of 

SRM-M070417B to include the individuals who perform QC/QV inspections under the same 

Subpart I provisions as individuals who perform maintenance functions specified in 

10 CFR 26.4(a)(4). 

Staff requests that this document be treated as Official Use Only-Sensitive Internal Information, 

because it contains predecisional information. 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The 

current resource implications do not meet the threshold for review by the Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer. 

/RA/ by Bruce S. Mallett for

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 
The Commissioners - 4 - 

COORDINATION: 

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The 

current resource implications do not meet the threshold for review by the Office of the Chief 

Financial Officer. 

/RA/ by Bruce S. Mallett for

R. W. Borchardt 

Executive Director 

 for Operations 

 

 

EDATS: NRR-2009-0056 

ADAMS Accession No.: ML092810184 *via e-mail 

OFFICE NRR/DIRS/IHPB NRR/DIRS/IHFB TECH EDITOR* NRR/DIRS 

NAME MBoggi UShoop K.Azariah-Kribbs FBrown 

DATE 11/12/09 11/12/09 11/ 12/09 11/06/09 

OFFICE NRR/DPR OGC/NLO NRR 

NAME TMcGinty 

(TQuay for) BJones ELeeds (BBoger for) 

DATE 11/09/09 11/17/09 11/20/09 

OFFICE EDO 

NAME BSMallett for 

RBorchardt 

DATE 12/15/09 

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY