(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 will 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.

A THIS ORDER

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

C TOTAL ORDERS TO DATE

(TOTAL A & BI

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

FINANCIAL FLEXIBILITY:

FUNDS WILL NOT BE REPROGRAMMED BETWEEN FINS LINED CONSTITUTES A LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
AUTHORIZED

-0

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

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

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.

An alternative rule based on the FAA approach was suggested by
Commissioner Gilinsky. Such a rule would prohibit personnel from
entering vital areas of nuclear power units while under the
influence of alcohol (define as 0.04 blood alcohol concentration)*
or drugs or otherwise unfit for duty, leaving the method of
carrying out the rule up to the licensee. It should be noted
that, while the 0.04 blood alcohol concentration has been
proposed by the FAA, it has not yet been adopted.

During the past 18 months, the NRC staff has discussed various
issues and exchanged information with Department of Transportation
staffs responsible for FAA and BMCS fitness for duty rulemaking
actions. Since both FAA and BMCS rules follow an identical approach,
⚫urrent and proposed FAA fitness for duty rules focusing on alcohol
.nd drugs are discussed here as illustrative of that approach. In
discussing FAA fitness for duty rules, two factors should be kept
in mind. First, extensive research over 30 years into the effects
of alcohol, other drugs and emotional and physical impairments on
air and surface transportation has been carried out by government
and industry (e.g., "The Effects of Alcohol on Pilot Performance
During Instrumented Flight," "Alcohol and Highway Safety 1978: A
Review of the State of Knowledge," and "Drugs and Highway Safety
1980"). The results of this research provide the technical basis
for the FAA and BMCS rulemaking actions. Second, current and
proposed FAA rules are prescriptive; that is, specific criteria
for fitness for duty, methods of carrying out the rules and
punitive actions against violators are contained in the rules.
The current FAA rule (14 CFR 91.11) does not allow any person
to act as an aircrew member of a civil aircraft: (1) within 8
hours after the consumption of any alcoholic beverage; (2)
while under the influence of alcohol; or, (3) while using any
drug that affects his faculties in any way contrary to safety.
An aircrew member is defined to include any pilot, flight
engineer, flight navigator, flight attendant or other person
assigned to perform duties in an aircraft during flight. The
rule also applies to passengers and FAA inspectors, stating...
"Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow
a person who is obviously under the influence of intoxicating
liquors or drugs (except a medical patient under proper care)
to be carried in the aircraft." This latter part of 14 CFR
91.11 is supplemented by 14 CFR 121.575 (c) which states, "No
certificate holder may allow any person to board any of its
aircraft if that person appears to be intoxicated." Finally,
14 CFR 63.12 provides for suspension of an aircrew member's
certification or rating for a period of up to 1 year after
violation of any part of 14 CFR 91.11.

*40 milligrams of alcohol in a sample of 100 milliliters of blood.