Page images
PDF
EPUB

no fire actually occurs, the staff could impose nothing higher than a Severity Level IV violation.

For ell of these reasons, I cannot support the process and interpretations outlined by the staff in the SECY-85-306 series. There are unanswered questions about the need for the document, the workability of the propcsed process, and the technical adequacy of the new interpretations.

BACKFIT ANALYSIS

As a separate metter, I think the Commission should carefully consider the backfit analysis provided by the staff on the new interpretations document. The analysis is cursory at best. The discussions of the criteria in $50.109 are really nothing more than unsupported, conclusory statements. The level of detail in this analysis is far below that of the analysis provided for the Station. Blackout Rule. I propose that we require an * that is at least as complete as that for the Station Blackout Rule.

Further, I propose that we publish a more detailed analysis for public comment, as was the interpretations document. Any comments received should be addressed before the Commission acts.

[merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

RULENIAKING ISSUE seco-s3-222

(Affirmation)

The Commissioners

William J. Dircks
Executive Director for Operations

FINAL RULEMAKING CONCERNING FITNESS FOR DuTY FOR PERSONNEL witH
UNESCORTED ACCESS TO PROTECTED AREAS

To obtain Commission approval to publish a final rule in the
Federal Register which would require development and implementa-
tion of written procedures providing reasonable assurance that
personnel with unescorted access to protected areas of nuclear
power stations, while in those protected areas, are fit for duty.
Licensees issued operating licenses for commercial power reactors
under 10 CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22 will be required to develop and
implement written procedures within 9 months after the effective
date of the rule, or the date of issuance of an operating license,
whichever is later. Licensees who cannot meet the 9-month deadline
must submit, not less than 90 days prior to that deadline, a request
for an extension to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation and demonstrate good cause for the request. The 9-month
requirement resulted from discussions with fitness for duty program
developers in other government agencies and private industry.

On August 5, 1982, the Commission published for comment (47 FR
33980) a proposed rule amending its current regulation 10 CFR
50.54, "Conditions of Licenses" to require licensees to develop
and implement written procedures concerning fitness for duty.
(See Enclosure "G" for Public Announcement of proposed rule.)
ADM sent copies of the proposed rule to all affected licensees
and other interested persons.

Seventy-three responses containing 310 comments were received
(see analysis in Enclosure "D"). Approximately forty percent
of the respondents favor the rule. The remainder question the
necessity for the rule, stating that licensees are aware of the
fitness for duty issue and are taking appropriate remedial -
action. Included in this latter group are 22 of 36 utilities
responding, eight of 10 utility suppliers responding, and six
of seven private citizens identified with the nuclear industry.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The Commissioners

Approximately one-third of the comments involve socioeconomic and
implementation issues. Recommendations were received for changes
in the rule involving its wording, scope, and persons affected.
A total of 102 comments were received in response to five specific
questions posed by the Commissioners in the Federal Register notice.
Nineteen respondents are in favor of the Commission establishing
specific fitness for duty criteria; three respondents feel that
these criteria should be established by the individual licensees.

Twenty-seven respondents comment that the Commission should not

specify specific methods (e.g., breath testers, psychological
tests) for implementing the "Fitness for Duty" rule. Ten
respondents favor limiting the rule to vital areas of the plant;
five favor its application in all protected areas. Thirty-three
respondents favor extending the rule to NRC personnel; two do not
favor such an extension. Three respondents comment that the NRC
should not establish specific blood-alcohol level limits; one
respondent favors NRC establishing limits but does not recommend
a specific level.

The Federal Register notice for the final fule (Enclosure "A")
includes a brief summary of major issues raised in the comments
received. Enclosure "0" provides a detailed discussion and
resolution of all public comments.

The final rule does not include coverage of NRC personnel, since NRC personnel (e.g., inspectors) require unfettered access to nuclear power plants to perform their assigned duties, and since they do not perform functions that directly and immediately affect the safety of the plant.

The rule retains the word "protected" rather than using the term
"vital" to describe affected areas of the plant. Selective appli-
cation of the rule only to persons with unescorted access to 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 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.

Finally, the rule is broadly worded in keeping with the belief
that each licensee should establish specific procedures and tech- -
niques for determining fitness for duty (e.g., breath testers,
psychological tests) taking into consideration circumstances unique
to its facility. Written procedures developed by licensees would
protably include the following: (1) a statement of responsibilities
of the program coordinator, managers, supervisors, and employees
who come in 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

The Co-issioners

Discussion:

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 (INPO), Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the utilities, is developing a set of standard guidelines for licensees to use in responding to this rule.

The NRC does not have regulations which specifically address use of alcohol and other drugs or the broader issue of fitness for duty of persons with unescorted access to protected areas at nuclear power stations. Since operation of a nuclear power station by personnel not fit for duty could degrade the licensee's abil to operate the facility in a safe manner, developaent of a requirement concerning the determination of fitness for duty with respect to the consumption of alcoholic beverages, use of other drugs, and mental or physical impairments which could affect a person's faculties in a way contrary to safety is neces" sary to protect the health and safety of the public.

The subject final amendment will require that licensees operating commercial power reactors licensed under 10 CFR 50.21Gb) or 50.22 establish and implement written procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that the licensee's and its contractors' personnel with unescorted access to protected areas, while in those protected areas, are not under the influence of alcohol or other drugs or otherwise unfit for duty.

Personnel would be considered unfit for duty if their faculties were affected in a way contrary to safety by substances such as alcohol or other drugs. Additionally, the phrase "... or otherwise unfit for duty..." is intended to require the licensee to consider other factors when determining an individual's fitness for duty, such as the effects of fatigue, stress, illness, and physical impairments.

Consideration was given to incorporating this "Fitness for Duty"
rule into the draft proposed revision to 10 CFR 73.56 (Access
Authorization Rule). Because of the different orientations of
the two rules, i.e., trustworthiness ($ 73.56) versus fitness
($ 50.54), and the need to rapidly establish a regulatory basis
from which to address the fitness for duty issue, the decision
was made to keep the two rulemakings separate, at least initially.
After gaining experience from the implementation and use of these
rules (e.g., 2-3 years), the staff will reconsider whether these
rules should be combined or coupled in some way. Additionally,

The co-issioners

Recommendations:

the staff considered extending the rule to nuclear power plants under construction. It was determined by the staff that these plants need not be included in the rule since construction presents no immediate adverse effect on the public health and safety due to a radioactive release. Additionally, government and industry quality assurance programs at construction sites would be expected to minimize the potential latent effects of poor workmanship, due to non-fitness for duty, on operating

plant safety.

That the Commission:

[ocr errors]

Approve publication of the final rule as set forth in Enclosure "A", to amend 10 CFR 50.2 and 50.54 by requiring that licensees operating commercial power reactors licensed under 10 CFR 50.21(b) or 50.22 establish and implement adequate written procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance ######################## irrortnorotorio-root-of

[ocr errors]

at Coulon at Tec Gir faculties_in_any way contrary to safety, or otherwise un use of mental or p àBăssments which could affect their performance in any way contrary to safety:

In order to satisfy the requirements of the Regulatory Flexi-
bility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b), certify that this final rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This certification is included in
the enclosed Federal Register notice.

Note:

a. That, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.5(d)(3) neither an environmental impact statement nor a negative declaration need be prepared in connection with this rulemaking action since the amendment is nonsubstantive and insignificant from the standpoint of environmental impact.

b. That the Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce will be informed.

c. That ADM will send copies of the final rule to all affected licensees and other interested persons following Commission approval.

« PreviousContinue »