The rule is broadly worded in keeping with the belief that each licensee should establish specific procedures and techniques for determining fitness for duty (e.g., breath testers, psychological tests) taking into consideration circumstances unique to its facility. The Supplementary Information for the rule specifies that written procedures developed by licensees will be expected to respond to the following nominal guidelines: (1) a statement of responsibilities of the program coordinator, managers, supervisors, and employees who come into contact with persons with unescorted access to protected areas; (2) an observation procedure; (3) a procedure (diagnosis, referral, return to duty) for assisting individuals who meet the criteria for alcohol/drug abuse or emotional instability; (4) an administrative procedure for processing individuals who refuse assistance and/or who wish to exercise their appeal rights; and (5) training provisions for all personnel and management to acquaint them with the licensee's fitness for duty procedures. Additionally, an industry task force, staffed by representatives from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (IMPO), Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the utilities, is developing a set of standard guidelines for licensees to use in responding to this rule. c. Should the "Fitness for Duty" rule be limited in scope to personnel with unescorted access to vital as opposed to protected areas as defined in 10 CFR § 73.2? Ten respondents comment that the rule should be restricted to vital areas; five comment that it should include protected areas. The NRC staff believes that the rule should include all protected areas. Selective application of the rule to only persons with access to the more restricted vital areas would be impractical, since implementation of the rule will occur at the entrance to and in the protected areas of the plant. Additionally, there is no way of guaranteeing that persons with unescorted access to protected areas will not penetrate vital areas through assistance from or coercion of persons with unescorted access to vital areas, especially if under the influence of alcohol or other mind altering and mood changing drugs. d. Should the "Fitness for Duty" rule apply to NRC personnel? Thirtythree respondents comment that it should; two comment that it should not. The NRC staff believes that the rule should not include coverage of NRC personnel, since NRC personnel (e.g., inspectors) need unfettered access to nuclear power plants to perform their assigned duties, and since they do not perform functions that directly and immediately affect plant safety. e. Should there be specific blood alcohol level limits? Three respondents comment that there should not be specific blood alcohol levels established; one respondent comments that there should be levels established (no specific level recommended). The NRC staff currently believes that specification of criteria for unfitness for duty (e.g., blood alcohol level) should be left to the discretion of the licensee. latory Femmy Act or the sma 12:3 C:LD ET se esta remulations vatan by the Sma Business Ainistration P While it is record that the contractors may to within we score of smail entities, it has been determined that the impact on these contractors de to the implementation of this rale de 23 not meet the threshold of a significant economic impact However, if any independent contractor who services Buclear power plants or components believes there would be significant economic impact the contracter ensui comment on this in the Commissica List of Subjects in CFR Part Anttrest Cassed informaten. The prevention Intergovemmental relatica Nuclear power plants and reactor. Penny, Radiation protection Ress=”. siting antena. Raporting reguramen PART SO-OOSTRO LICENSING CF PRODUCTION AND UTILIZATION FACILT.ES For the reasons set out in the preamble and pusuant to the Atomic Energy Act of isst, as amended the Energy Reorganization Act of 254, 23 amended, and section 353 of Tiles of the United States Caria. netice is hereby given that adopten no the folowing amandment to 10 CFT. Part 50 is contemplated 1 The authority diation for Part 50 continues to read as fellows Authanby: Sera 107, 154. 10%, 1:2:22:33 68 S:21, 233, 737, 243 242 934, 75A 53 23 amended 14: U S.C.34. also issued under sec. :54, 58 Stat 954, as amended (42 USC 50:02 issued unem USC 1996. :89. 63 Stal 253 (42 and For the purposes of see a 8 Stat. 553 as arcended 142 US.C.: 50.0 fal fot and (c), $2.44 52.48 52.42, 90.54, and 50.5!a) are issued under 1:55. 53 Stat 943 as amended (42 U.S.Cisco (c) and $2.54 are issued under sec:52% 58 Stat 5:9, as amenses U.S.Cand $ 50.53(e) 50.39(3), 13.70, 50.7%, 92.72 and 50.78 are issued under sec. :010, 58 Stat 322 as amended (42 USC ==:{0}]} 2 A new paragraph (7) is added to § 50.2 to read as !cilows £50.2 Definitions () "Protected area” means an area encompassed by physical bamers and to which access is convroued. (x8) Esch Homes with so obersti licence issue ander ¦ CO2000) or j : shad establian, document and imp.emmt atezzate was designed to ensure that wh..e on day the lenses and its contremtors' personnei with unerommed ancoss :3 protected areas are not— (1) Under the influence of alezko (H) Uking any crops that affem t faculties in czy way contrary to scizija (iù) OtSirense unfit for dum became of mental or amorary phys.ca performance is any away cosy to (2) Each Tomace stall maintain th written records of these proceduresiz the is of the pian Dated at Washingto 30th day For the Nuclear Regulatory Cozziesim John C. ¡lay'a Acting Secretary of the Commission cVIL AERONAUTICS SCARD 14 CFR Part 323.. (PJR-79; Cockat 40291; Datest July X Procedures for Awarding Japanese Serween the U.S. and jasan allows ea SUMMARY: Az isterim agrement country's striizes to perform 150 ons way charter flights between the two countries each year. The CAE propose procedures for allocating the fast years. 333 Nights to interested US airines Grandfather autenty would be alerted to certain airlines and the remuning ights would ze awarded by lottery. DATE:: Comments by: August 12 1522 Comments and other relevant information received after this date wil be considered by the Board cly to the extent practicable. ADDRESSES: Twenty copies of comments should be sent to Docket car. Cri Aeronautics Scard : Connection Avenue. N. Washington. 2.C. Individuais may submit their views 88 conpatters without fling multis.e capies. Comments may be examined is Cajune 4, 25 the Covenants of the United States and japan concised a provisional interum agrement that for fra fost time previces U.S. denigmata and nondesired sir carers with the ant to operate onomer servnces in the U.S.japin market under county ng roles. is especially inti barelora condomatic co been severly stated in performing coumors in Jaren must ea and the designated scheduled cameIS allowed to 10 port upats were rugared to acher to the mure mingent charterworthiness miles of japan While representing a guifenst 1199 forward in Ujapan chamer ro... Seletorm Amiement does er of them thot may be cporated any one year to 100 cway chamer fights for the airlines of ec country, la might of the large amount :! interest already shown by US came In operating chamers to japan under the arwater Agrement ens a tipation of is imminent formed mulation we bolleve : zotossery:s 4:0pt on an emergency basıl temporary procedures to gave the location of the first year's 30 charter auchemmations among these US cers that desire to operate them We world of course, prefer not to bave to allocate there newly was charter nights. However, her limited availability and potential to mandy 9.3.-japan our service opportunities, coupled with our ceu 10 ensure that they are promptly and equaply distributed, peruace us bat Se more responsible course of action is for us, at the outset to estaciira procedures to govem their use.* On December 9, 1986, the Commission responded to your letter of November 7 I did not join in either letter because both of the Commission's responses First, regulations would provide the Commission with much more enforcement - 2 enforcement action would depend upon its ability to identify an immediate threat to health or safety or to tie a specific safety problem to a lapse in the licensee's fitness for duty program. However, waiting until a specific safety problem surfaces or an immediate threat occurs and then trying to correct a fitness for duty program is not the most efficient or effective way to ensure that 11censees have adequate programs. Rather, the Commission should set out the groundrules ahead of time and inspect to ensure compliance. Second, clear requirements and guidance would ensure that all utilities would at least start from the same point. The Commission policy statement 1s too amorphous to provide much guidance, and the elements of the industry's EEI guidelines are discretionary. Thus, the individual utilities retain broad flexibility to do as much or as little as they want in developing a fitness for duty program. The result has been quite predictable: there are wide variations in the scope and quality of individual utility fitness for duty programs. To cite just one example, not all utilities have as an element of their programs a random drug testing requirement an essential element, in my view, of an effective program. Commission requirements and inspections would ensure that all utilities have at least the core elements essential to an effective program and properly implement those elements. An additional concern I have with the Commission's response to your letter of December 8, 1986 is that the Commission did not mention the fact that even the Fitness for Duty Policy Statement, nebulous as it is, does not apply to construction sites. Developing a policy statement or requirements for an operating plant is much easier than developing one for a construction site because a construction site presents different problems and issues that must be resolved. For example, many more people work on a construction site, and turnover in the workforce is much higher than at an operating reactor. In addition, construction workforces tend to rely more heavily on transient workers. Also, there are usually a number of contractors on site who provide their own employees. Since not everyone works for the utility, it is harder for the utility to implement an effective fitness for duty program. Because of these and other difficulties and because with operating reactors there is a more immediate health and safety risk, the Commission chose to focus its initial fitness for duty efforts on operating reactors. I agreed with that decision because I felt it was important to move ahead with requirements for operating reactors. However, the Commission should not ignore the construction site problem. We should, therefore, begin developing appropriate requirements for construction sites as well. I hope that this information is helpful to you. Sincerely, Frans 14. Grafting James K. Asselstine |