Acrested 9/24/84

い

Mr. M. J. Lawrence, Manager
Richland Operations Office
U. S. Department of Energy
P. O. Box 550

Richland, Washington 99352

Dear Mr. Lawrence:

SEP 17 1984

FY 1984 NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH ORDER NO. 60-84-252 FOR PACIFIC
NORTHWEST LABORATORY

Please authorize Pacific Northwest Laboratory to execute the program
described in the enclosed NRC Order.

If this meets with your approval, it is requested that acceptance be
indicated on the enclosed form and the original be sent to the NRC
Office of Resource Management and one copy returned to this office.

(1) Evaluate existing nuclear power station performance data for their utility as intermediate (before the event) or final (after the event) measures of safety. Existing data sources identified during earlier RES (this FIN) and NRR research (FIN B2360) will be included, as a minimum, in this analysis.

(2) Validate intermediate measures of safety performance identified during Task (1), using final measures as criteria. The data sample used for this validation will not be the same as that used for Task 1. Data used for this task wiTT represent intermediate and final measures covering at least 1-year period of power station performance. Data on intermediate measures will represent power station performance of approximately a 1-year period preceding those data representing final measures.

TOTAL OF ORDERS PLACED PRIOR TO THIS DATE WITH THE PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
UNDER THE SAME APPROPRIATION SYMBOL" AND THE FIRST FOUR DIGITS OF THE
RAF NUMBER CITED ABOVE

DADLA UNIBER

60-84-252

DATE

D AMOUNT INCLUDED IN "C" APPLICABLE TO THE "FIN NUMBER" CITED IN THIS ORDER.

FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY:

n/a

-0

FUNDS WILL NOT BE REPROGRAMMED BETWEEN FINS. LINE D CONSTITUTES A LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
AUTHORIZED.

FUNDS MAY BE REPROGRAMMED NOT TO EXCEED 2 10% OF FIN LEVEL UP TOSSOK LINE C CONSTITUTES A LIMITATION
ON DELIGATIONS AUTHORIZED

STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS PROVIDED DOE ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THIS ORDER
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

REMARKS: Adjust FY83 uncosted funds for the following FINS:

Funds from this adjustment will be used to complete work
as specified in the enclosed program brief.

SIGNATURE surdick

If for

TITLE Division of Risk Analysis & Operations
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

MRC FORM 173 12-78)

SIGNATURE

ACCEPTING ORGANIZATION

Maynard Sakuto
TITLE Maynard J. Plahuta, Chief

PNL Operations Branch. Energy Programs Division
September 26, 1984

DATE

Subject:

Purpose:

Background:

Discussion:

Executive Director for Operations

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING FINAL PROPOSED FITNESS
FOR DUTY RULE (SECY 83-339)

This paper responds to a December 12, 1983 memorandum from the
Secretary requesting additional information and staff views on
a number of issues raised by the Commissioners during their
deliberations on the final proposed fitness for duty rule
(SECY 83-339).

A majority of the Commission has agreed that the rule
should apply to escorted as well as unescorted personnel at
nuclear power units, to vital rather than protected areas of
those units, and to NRC employees (and other Federal, State .
and local government employees) who are otherwise authorized
access. The Commission has not reached a decision about
the handling of NRC employees determined not fit for duty
(whether they should be provided prompt escorted access or
whether they should be denied access); and it has not
decided whether the rule should be broadly worded (leaving
implementation procedures to licensees) or more narrowly
worded with a substantive criterion on alcohol level
(thereby following an approach pursued by other regulatory
agencies such as the Department of Transportation's
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Bureau of Motor
Carrier Safety (BMCS)).

ESCORTED ACCESS VERSUS DENIAL OF ACCESS FOR NRC EMPLOYEES

The Commission agreed that the rule should apply to NRC and other Federal, State and local government employees who are authorized access to vital areas of nuclear power units, but requested

CONTACT:

Thomas G. Ryan, RES
44-37656

staff views on the issue of handling NRC employees and other
Federal State and local government personnel appearing unfit
for duty (whether they should be provided escorted access or
whether they should be denied access). We still believe that
NRC employees should not be covered by this rule; nevertheless,
we have drafted the rule to comply with Commission views. Further-
more, we believe that licensees should be required to grant such NRC
employees and other Federal, State and local government personnel
escorted access rather than to be allowed to deny access and to
immediately notify the appropriate NRC Regional Administrator,
DOE official, or other State or local government official when
they have granted such access. The licensee's procedures will
have to designate appropriate officials who are to be advised
when other Federal, State or local government employees are
granted escorted access. We believe this approach is appropriate
because giving licensees the right to deny access could give them
inappropriate authority over NRC employees that might be used as a
pretext for preventing NRC inspectors from carrying out their duties
in a timely manner, and because providing escorted access should
prevent a person who is unfit for duty from performing an act that
could jeopardize safety.

A BROADLY-WORDED, PROCEDURES-BASED RULE VERSUS ONE WHICH IS MORE
PRESCRIPTIVE

The Commission is concerned about whether licensees will be able
to specify details in the procedures required by the fitness for
duty rule, and whether NRC should develop specific guidelines
about acceptable implementation procedures. The Commission also
requests that the staff consider, as an alternative to requiring
written procedures, the FAA approach (criterion-based rule) as
proposed by Commissioner Gilinsky. SECY-83-339 currently
proposes that licensees, rather than the NRC, identify specific
procedures for determining and responding to the fitness for
duty requirements, taking into consideration circumstances
unique to their own facilities. Guidelines for preparing
licensee procedures in response to the rule, as currently
proposed, were published in September 1983 by an Edison
Electric Institute (EEI) Task Force and are entitled,
"Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol Policy Development"
(Enclosure 3). If the fitness for duty rule, as
currently proposed by the staff, is promulgated by the
Commission, we intend to use the EEI document as a basis for
reviewing licensee procedures pertaining to alcohol and drugs.

We continue to believe, though, that the rule should be broadly
worded and procedures-based (allowing licensees to determine
fitness for duty through observation of employee behavior),
since a firm technical basis does not exist for specifying
definite criteria with regard to unfitness for duty for
personnel at nuclear power units who are under the influence
of alcohol, other drugs, or are otherwise emotionally or
physiologically impaired.