(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.
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
D AMOUNT INCLUDED IN "C" APPLICABLE TO THE "FIN NUMBER” CITED IN THIS ORDER.
FUNDS WILL NOT BE REPROGRAMMED BETWEEN FINS LINED CONSTITUTES A LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS AUTHORIZED
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.
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
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.
« PreviousContinue » |