[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 52 (Friday, March 17, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13782-13787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-3922]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 52 / Friday, March 17, 2006 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13782]]
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 26
RIN-3150-AF12
Fitness for Duty Programs; Notice of Meeting
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NRC's purpose in holding a meeting is to obtain stakeholder
feedback on the staff's alternative concepts for work-hour controls and
the applicability of drug, alcohol and, access authorization program
requirements to combined license (COL) holders during construction. The
NRC is seeking to have an exchange of views during the scheduled public
meeting, as part of the development of alternatives. The meeting agenda
and the staff's concepts for alternative requirements are included in
the Supplemental Information section of this meeting notice. The staff
will also discuss the development of implementation guidance for the
fatigue management provisions of this rulemaking.
DATES: Wednesday, March 29, 2006. 9 a.m.-12 p.m. Session 1 (FFD for COL
applicants). 1 p.m.-5 p.m. Session 2 (Alternative work hour controls).
Thursday, March 30, 2006. 9 a.m.-12 p.m. Session 1 (Implementation
guidance for fatigue management provisions).
A limited number of telephone lines are available for interested
members of the public to participate in this meeting via a toll-free
teleconference: 1-800-638-8081. Pass Code: 9516 (for March 29,
2006) and 1-800-475-0212. Pass Code 48994 (for March 30, 2006).
ADDRESSES: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Two White Flint North
Auditorium, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Diec, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission
301-415-2834, [email protected].
Dave Desaulniers, Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 301-415-1043, [email protected].
Tim McCune, Nuclear Security and Incident Response, Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. 301-415-6474, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 26, 2005, the NRC published
proposed amendment for Fitness for Duty (FFD) programs to Title 10,
part 26 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR part 26) in the
Federal Register (70 FR 50442). The 120-day public comment period ended
on December 27, 2005. The NRC received a number of substantive public
comments both in support of and against the fatigue management
provisions of the proposed rule that would require a 24-hour break in
any 7-day period, a 48-hour break in any 14-day period, and collective
work hour limits. The NRC also received comments on the applicability
of drug and alcohol and access authorization programs associated with
facilities under construction. In developing the final rule, the staff
determined that additional stakeholder input would help resolve these
issues.
Agenda: Meetings With Stakeholders To Obtain Feedback on Staff's
Concepts for FFD Requirements for Combined License Holders During
Construction and Alternative Work Hour Controls
Wednesday March 29, 2006
Session 1 (9 a.m.-12 p.m.) (FFD for COL applicants)
9 a.m.-9:05 a.m.--Introduction and Opening Remarks (D. Diec/NRC).
9:05 a.m.-9:10 a.m.--Remarks on Stakeholder Comments on
Construction Applicant (T. McCune/NRC).
9:10 a.m.-9:20 a.m.--Summary of Stakeholder Comments on
Construction Applicant (V. Barnes/NRC).
9:20 a.m.-9:40 a.m.--Overview of Resolution Concept--Modified FFD
Program for Individuals with Unescorted Access (T. McCune/V. Barnes/
NRC).
9:40 a.m.-10:30 a.m.--Questions and Comments.
10:30 a.m.-10:50 a.m.--Break.
10:50 a.m.-11:10 a.m.--Overview of Resolution Concept--Full FFD
Requirements for Certain Individuals With Unescorted Access to a
Construction Site (T. McCune/V. Barnes/NRC).
11:10 a.m.-11:55 a.m.--Questions and Comments.
11:55 a.m.-12 p.m.--Closing Remarks (David Diec/NRC).
Session 2 (1 p.m.-5 p.m.) (Alternative Work Hour Controls)
1 p.m.-1:10 p.m.--Introduction and Opening Remarks (D. Diec/NRC).
1:10 p.m.-1:45 p.m.--Summary of Stakeholder Comments on Work Hour
Controls Overview of Resolution Concept--Non-Outage Periods (D.
Desaulniers/NRC).
1:45 p.m.-2:15 p.m.--Questions and Comments.
2:15 p.m.-2:30 p.m.--Break.
2:30 p.m.-2:45 p.m.--Overview of Resolution Concept--Outage Periods
Operations, Maintenance, HP/Chemistry and Fire Brigade Personnel (J.
Persensky/NRC).
2:45 p.m.-3:15 p.m.--Questions and Comments.
3:15 p.m.-3:30 p.m.--Overview of Resolution Concept: Outage Periods
and Security Personnel (E. Skarpac/NRC).
3:30 p.m.-4 p.m.--Questions and Comments.
4 p.m.-5 p.m.--Additional Questions and Comments if needed.
Thursday March 30, 2006
Session 1 (9 a.m.-12 p.m.) (Implementation guidance for fatigue
management provisions)
9 a.m.-9:10 am--Introduction and Opening Remarks (D. Diec/NRC).
9:10 a.m.-9:30 a.m.--Process for development of guidance to support
Final Rule (NRC Staff).
9:30 a.m.-10 a.m.--Outline of NEI proposed guidance (NEI).
10 a.m.-10:30 a.m.--Guidance on 26.199(c)) as a performance-based
rule (NEI/NRC).
10:30 a.m.-10:45 a.m.--Break.
10:45 a.m.-11:15 a.m.--Work hour scheduling (NEI).
11:15 a.m.-11:30 a.m.--Managing hours worked (calculating hours/
turnover)(NEI).
11:30 a.m.-11:50 a.m.--Questions and Comments.
11:50 a.m.-12 p.m.--Summary, Path forward and Closing Remarks (D.
Diec/NRC).
[[Page 13783]]
Issues Discussion-Alternative Concepts for Fitness-for-Duty
Requirements for Construction Sites
Background
The current 10 CFR part 26 requires FFD programs for licensees
holding permits to construct a nuclear power plant. The provisions of
the FFD programs are stipulated in Sec. 26.2(c). The proposed 10 CFR
part 26 updates the rule and increases consistency with changes in
other relevant Federal rules and guidelines. In particular, the
proposed Sec. 26.3(e) expands the scope of FFD programs to include
combined license holders and holders of manufacturing licenses (under
10 CFR part 52). In addition, the NRC recently asked the Office of the
Federal Register to publish the agency's proposed Amendment for
Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1, 2, 10, 19, 20,
21, 25, 26, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 72, 73, 75, 95, 140, 170, and 171 to
clarify the applicability of various requirements to each of the
licensing processes (i.e., for early site permit, standard design
approval, standard design certification, combined licensing, and
manufacturing license). The NRC expects this proposed amendment to be
available for public comment around March 13, 2006.
As a result of public comments on proposed Sec. 26.3(e) and
industry efforts to develop guidance for implementing FFD programs at
construction sites for new reactors, the NRC is reconsidering its
proposed requirements for FFD programs at construction sites (the point
at which construction begins will be defined in proposed Sec.
52.103(c) and Sec. 50.10(e)(3) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations). In comments on proposed Sec. 26.3(e), NEI and other
industry stakeholders suggested that nuclear power plant construction
sites should be regulated on the basis of industrial safety
considerations, rather than public health and safety or the common
defense and security, and that full FFD programs were unnecessary.
The NRC agrees with these commenters that activities at a
construction site before the arrival of nuclear fuel will not pose
immediate radiological risks to public health and safety. However, poor
workmanship by construction workers who are impaired could introduce
flaws into systems and components and challenge safe plant operations
after a new plant goes on-line, if the flaws are not detected through
the extensive testing of systems and components that is planned for new
construction. A more immediate concern is individuals working at new
plant construction sites will have access to information about the
design, layout, and intended operations of the systems and components
they construct, information that could be of benefit to an adversary if
disclosed. Furthermore, some construction workers may have
opportunities to engage in sabotage. Undetected involvement with
illegal drugs or an untreated alcohol problem could make these
individuals vulnerable to influence. Therefore, the NRC believes that
regulating construction activities for new reactors solely in terms of
industrial safety would not provide the necessary level of assurance of
public health and safety and the common defense and security.
The NRC also recognizes the many logistical and cost challenges of
implementing several of the requirements in proposed Sec. 26.3(e) for
FFD programs at construction sites. The NRC agrees that much of the
workforce at a construction site will likely be transient and rapidly
changing and that applying some of the proposed requirements to such
workers may be overly burdensome. For example, the proposed
requirements that these workers have access to an employee assistance
program (EAP) and that determinations of fitness be done by a substance
abuse expert in accordance with proposed Sec. 26.189 may impose costs
on licensees that are not commensurate with the potential benefits to
public health and safety and the common defense and security.
Furthermore, although some new construction sites will be near existing
nuclear power plants, other construction sites will likely be distant
from a current licensee's specimen collection facilities for drug and
alcohol testing. Imposing requirements for random testing of all
individuals who will work at such ``greenfield'' construction sites
could have the unintended consequence of requiring licensees to build
specimen collection and alcohol testing facilities at these sites
before construction can begin.
Therefore, the NRC is considering alternative approaches to the
requirements in proposed part 26 that would apply to construction
sites. One alternative under consideration is a two-tiered approach to
FFD programs for construction sites after construction has begun:
Licensees and other entities could implement modified FFD programs for
certain individuals who would have unescorted access to the
construction site while requiring other individuals with specific job
duties at the construction site to be subject to a full FFD program.
Modified FFD Program for Individuals With Unescorted Access to the
Construction Site
The modified FFD program that the NRC is considering would be
intended to provide reasonable assurance that individuals who have
unescorted access to a construction site are fit for duty and
trustworthy and reliable, commensurate with the risk to public health
and safety and the common defense and security that their activities
and their access to certain information would impose. The modified FFD
program would apply only to individuals who have unescorted access to
the construction site and work at the construction site for more than 5
days in any 1-year period. Individuals who work at the construction
site for 5 days or fewer in a year, or who visit the site for other
reasons, would not be subject to an FFD program, instead would be
escorted while on site.
Under the modified FFD program, construction workers who have
unescorted access to the construction site would be subject to some of
the elements of a full Part 26 FFD program, but not to others. In
addition, the licensees and other entities who are responsible for
construction activities (i.e., combined license holders under part 52
before the Commission has made the finding under Sec. 52.103(g),
combined license applicants who have received authorization to
construct under Sec. 50.10(e)(3), construction permit holders under
part 50, and construction permit applicants who have received
authorization to construct under Sec. 50.10(e)(3)) would be permitted
to establish procedures for implementing certain FFD program elements
that are best-suited to the circumstances at their site, but may not
fully comply with the requirements for each program element in proposed
part 26.
The following FFD program elements would not apply to individuals
who have unescorted access to a construction site under the modified
program: (1) The fatigue management requirements in proposed subpart I;
(2) the FFD training requirements in proposed Sec. 26.29; (3) random
drug and alcohol testing requirements in proposed Sec. 26.31(c)(5);
(4) the requirement for access to an EAP under proposed Sec. 26.35,
and (5) the determination-of-fitness process described in proposed
Sec. Sec. 26.187 and 26.189. Individuals who have unescorted access to
a construction site would be subject to behavioral observation, as
described in proposed Sec. 26.33, but would not be required to perform
behavioral observation of others
[[Page 13784]]
because they would not be trained to do so.
The modified FFD program would be required to implement the
following specific requirements in proposed part 26: (1) FFD policies
and procedures for a more limited set of topics than specified in
proposed Sec. 26.27; (2) pre-access drug and alcohol testing in Sec.
26.31(c)(1), for-cause drug and alcohol testing in Sec. 26.31(c)(2),
and post-event testing for industrial accidents, as specified in
proposed Sec. 26.31(c)(3)(I); (3) the protection of information
requirements in proposed Sec. 26.37; (4) collecting specimens and
conducting alcohol tests in accordance with the requirements in
proposed subpart E, although licensees and other entities would be
permitted to rely on collection sites that meet the requirements of 49
CFR part 40.43; (5) at the licensee's discretion, testing of specimens
at a licensee testing facility in accordance with the requirements in
proposed subpart F; (6) initial and confirmatory testing of urine
specimens for drugs and validity at an HHS-certified laboratory in
proposed subpart G; (7) NRC review of drug test results in accordance
with Sec. Sec. 26.183 and 26.185; and (8) annual reports of FFD
program performance data under proposed Sec. 26.217 and the applicable
reports required under Sec. 26.219(b) of significant FFD policy
violations or programmatic failures. Imposing the specific requirements
in proposed part 26 for these FFD program elements under the modified
programs would: (1) Ensure that individuals who are subject to the
program understand their responsibilities; (2) provide for the
detection and deterrence of drug and alcohol abuse; (3) protect the
privacy of personal information that may be collected under part 26;
(4) ensure the integrity of the drug and alcohol testing performed
under the modified program; and (5) meet the NRC's need for certain
information to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of the modified
programs.
Specific requirements would also be added for granting unescorted
access to construction sites under a modified FFD program. The added
requirements would be similar to the requirements in proposed subpart C
for granting and maintaining authorization under the full FFD program
that are contained, including requirements for obtaining a self-
disclosure and employment history in proposed Sec. 26.61, conducting a
suitable inquiry in proposed Sec. 26.63, and performing pre-access
drug and alcohol testing in proposed Sec. 26.65. The NRC believes that
the same stringent requirements as proposed for granting authorization
to a nuclear power plant protected area should be applied in granting
unescorted access to a construction site to ensure that individuals are
trustworthy and reliable, as demonstrated by the avoidance of substance
abuse.
Individuals who are applying for unescorted access to a
construction site under the modified FFD program would be subject to
pre-access testing before they could be granted unescorted access to a
construction site in more circumstances than under the full FFD
program, particularly with respect to reinstating individuals'
unescorted access to a construction site after a short absence from the
site during which they were not subject to behavioral observation. Pre-
access testing would be required in more circumstances under the
modified FFD program because the modified program would not require
random testing. Licensees and other entities that implement a modified
program would be permitted to grant unescorted access to a construction
site without pre-access testing only if (1) the individual previously
held authorization and had been subject to both a drug and alcohol
testing program that included random testing and to a behavioral
observation and arrest-reporting program that met part 26 requirements
from the date on which the individual's last authorization was
terminated through the date upon which the individual would be granted
unescorted access to the construction site, or (2) the licensee or
other entity relies on negative results from drug and alcohol tests
conducted before the individual applied for unescorted access to the
construction site, as permitted under proposed Sec. 26.65(b), and the
individual remained subject to a behavioral observation and arrest-
reporting program that met part 26 requirements, beginning on the date
on which the drug and alcohol testing was conducted through the date on
which the individual is granted unescorted access to a construction
site and thereafter.
The extent to which licensees and other entities could accept and
rely on elements of the modified FFD program to meet the requirements
for granting authorization in proposed subpart C would also be more
limited than the extent to which the proposed rule would permit them to
rely on other, full FFD programs. For example, if an individual who had
unescorted access to a construction site had a positive drug test
result that was confirmed by an NRC under the modified program, and if
the FFD violation was reviewed and resolved without a determination of
fitness by a substance abuse expert (as would be permitted under the
modified program, but would be required for a full FFD program under
proposed Sec. 26.187), then a licensee who is seeking to grant the
individual unescorted access to a nuclear power plant protected area
could not do so without ensuring that a substance abuse expert made a
determination of fitness in accordance with proposed Sec. 26.189. In
addition, because an individual who was subject to a modified FFD
program would not have received any FFD training, a licensee who was
seeking to grant unescorted access to the individual would be required
to ensure that the individual received the required training before
granting unescorted access to the protected area of a nuclear power
plant.
The reciprocity between full FFD programs described in proposed
Sec. 26.53(d) would also be permitted between modified FFD programs.
However, licensees and other entities would not be permitted to rely on
program elements from a modified FFD program when granting
authorization, except if the modified FFD program elements fully
complied with the specific requirements in proposed part 26 for that
element.
There would be several FFD program elements in the modified program
that licensees and other entities would be permitted to develop and
implement on the basis of the circumstances at their specific
construction site. These program elements would not be required to
fully comply with the specific requirements for each program element in
proposed part 26, as follows:
Modified FFD programs would be required to have procedures that
describe the process to be followed if an individual's behavior raises
a concern regarding the possible use, sale, or possession of illegal
drugs on or off site, the possible possession or consumption of alcohol
on site, or impairment from any cause which in any way could adversely
affect the individual's ability to safely and competently perform his
or her duties, but the modified program would not be required to comply
with the specific requirements in proposed Sec. 26.77 for management
actions regarding possible impairment.
Modified FFD programs would also be required to establish sanctions
for FFD policy violations that, at a minimum, would prohibit the
individual from having access to or performing any job duties at the
construction site until the licensee or other entity determined that
the individual's behavior would not pose a risk to public health and
safety or the common defense and security. However, the modified
programs would not be required to implement the
[[Page 13785]]
minimum requirements for sanctions in proposed Sec. 26.75 or apply the
specific procedures for conducting a determination of fitness in
proposed Sec. 26.189.
Modified FFD programs would be required to have procedures for
determining and tracking individuals' identities and maintaining
records in a manner that would enable the program to function, but
would not be required to meet the specific recordkeeping requirements
in proposed Sec. 26.213.
Modified FFD programs would be required to provide for an objective
and impartial review of the facts related to a determination that an
individual had violated the FFD policy, but would not be required to
meet the specific requirements in proposed Sec. 26.39 for a review
process for FFD violations.
Modified FFD programs would also be required to conduct audits to
assure the continuing effectiveness of the FFD program, including FFD
program elements that would be provided by C/Vs, the FFD programs of
any C/Vs that would be accepted by the licensee or other entity, and
the programs of the HHS-certified laboratories on which the licensee or
other entity and its C/Vs would rely. The modified FFD program would be
audited at a frequency that would assure its continuing effectiveness
and corrective actions would be required to resolve any problems
identified. Licensees and other entities that implemented modified FFD
programs would also be permitted to jointly conduct audits, or accept
audits of C/Vs and HHS-certified laboratories by other licensees and
entities that are subject to part 26. However, modified FFD programs
would not be required to meet the specific requirements in proposed
Sec. 26.41 for the audits and corrective actions required for a full
FFD program. In addition, audits would be required to verify the
honesty and integrity of FFD program personnel, but modified FFD
programs would not be required to meet the specific requirements in
proposed Sec. 26.31(b).
Licensees and other entities would also be permitted, at their
discretion, to implement full FFD programs to which all individuals
with unescorted access to a construction site would be subject. Or they
may choose to implement all of the specific requirements for any FFD
program element required under part 26 or, at their discretion, a
subset of program elements. However, if a licensee or other entity
chose to implement one of the modified FFD program elements listed
above that did not fully comply with the specific requirements for that
element in proposed part 26, the NRC would require the licensee or
other entity to submit its modified FFD program plans to the NRC for
review and approval as part of the COL review process. These plans
would then become part of the COL. The NRC believes that the
flexibility to implement modified FFD program elements would eliminate
undue restrictions on construction site activities while assuring that
individuals who have unescorted access to construction sites are fit
for duty and trustworthy and reliable, as demonstrated by the avoidance
of substance abuse.
Full FFD Requirements for Certain Individuals With Unescorted Access to
a Construction Site
A second tier of requirements, the full FFD program, would apply to
individuals who are granted unescorted access to a construction site
and who perform the following job duties: (1) Supervise construction
activities at the site; (2) perform security duties as an armed
security force officer, alarm station operator, response team leader,
or watchperson for the construction site; (3) serve as an escort at the
construction site for visitors (i.e., individuals who are not
performing construction activities at the site or who will be
performing construction activities but will be present on site for 5
days or fewer in a year); or (4) serve as a reviewing official to grant
or deny unescorted access to the construction site. The individuals who
perform these job duties will have frequent opportunities to conduct
behavioral observation of construction workers who have unescorted
access to the construction site, as well as visitors to the site. They
would therefore be in a position to detect behavior that may indicate
impairment, and to detect and deter other undesirable conditions or
actions. However, it would be necessary to ensure that the individuals
in these job duties are trained in behavioral observation. In addition,
the individuals who perform these job duties would have important
responsibilities for assuring that work is performed correctly and that
construction site security is maintained. Therefore, the NRC believes
it would be necessary to ensure that individuals who perform these job
duties are subject to a full FFD program, including random testing.
However, to reduce the logistical impact of the random testing
requirement, licensees and other entities would not be required to
establish specimen collection facilities at a `greenfield' site, for
example, but would be permitted to have these individuals tested at a
local hospital or other facility in accordance with the requirements of
49 CFR part 40, ``Procedures for Department of Transportation Workplace
Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs'' (65 FR 1944, August 9, 2001).
Specific Thoughts About FFD Requirements for Construction Sites
1. Under a modified FFD program, individuals who have unescorted
access to a construction site would not be subject to random drug and
alcohol testing. The purpose of random testing is to deter and detect
substance abuse. However, these individuals would be subject to
behavioral observation from supervisors and security personnel at the
site and for-cause drug and alcohol testing if any indications of
altered behavior are observed. A review of FFD program performance
data, which licensees and other entities are required to report to the
NRC under the current and proposed rules, indicates that short-term
contractors have consistently had higher rates of positive drug and
alcohol test results than long-term contractors and licensee employees.
The NRC believes that the majority of construction site personnel will
be contractor/vendor, rather than licensee, personnel.
2. Under a modified FFD program, licensees and other entities would
be required to provide the FFD policy statement to individuals who are
subject to the modified program, rather than making the policy
statement ``readily available,'' as permitted in proposed Sec.
26.27(b). The requirement to ``provide'' the policy statement to
affected individuals would be necessary to ensure that these
individuals are aware of what is expected of them and what consequences
may result from a lack of adherence to the policy. The policy statement
would be the only means by which individuals would be informed of their
responsibilities under the modified program because they would not
receive FFD training.
3. The modified FFD program under consideration would not require
the determination of fitness process specified in proposed Sec. 26.189
to be performed by a substance abuse expert in proposed Sec. 26.187.
The modified program also would not establish requirements for followup
testing if an individual had violated the FFD policy. The modified
program would not include these requirements because of past experience
with how licensees and other entities respond to FFD policy violations
for C/V personnel. That is, the NRC expects that licensees and other
entities will terminate the unescorted access of any individual who has
violated the FFD policy and
[[Page 13786]]
deny them further access to a construction site, because, in many
cases, the skills of short-term C/V personnel are easily replaced. If a
licensee or other entity sought to grant, maintain, or reinstate
unescorted access to an individual who had violated the FFD policy, the
modified FFD program would require the licensee or other entity to
determine that the individual's behavior does not pose a risk to public
health and safety or the common defense and security, but would not
specify the process to be followed to achieve this goal.
4. The NRC is also seeking comment on the scope of the job duty
groups who would be subject to the second tier of more stringent
requirements (i.e., a full FFD program). That is, are there job duty
groups, other than supervisors, escorts, security personnel, and
reviewing officials, whose activities could pose a sufficient risk to
public health and safety or the common defense and security that
subjecting them to the full FFD program is warranted?
5. The NRC is also considering excluding holders of manufacturing
licenses (under proposed part 52 of 10 CFR) from FFD requirements at
this time. These potential licensees may not be constructing reactors
at the same fixed sites at which the reactors would be installed and
their construction activities may occur elsewhere. Therefore, the NRC
believes that additional study of the circumstances of these potential
licensees is warranted.
6. As discussed above, the modified FFD program under consideration
retains specific requirements for some FFD program elements, eliminates
requirements for some program elements, and establishes general
performance objectives for other program elements without establishing
specific requirements. There may be other mixes of general and specific
requirements that could be applied to FFD programs at construction
sites that would provide adequate assurance of public health and safety
and the common defense and security, commensurate with the potential
risks of construction site activities.
Subpart I--Fatigue Management
In response to the publication of the Proposed Part 26 rulemaking
for public comment (70 FR 50442, August 26, 2005), the NRC received
many comments from stakeholders regarding Subpart I, Fatigue
Management. The full text of these comments is available at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/rulemake?source=Part26_risk&st=prule.
Requirements that were the subject of substantive comment include: (1)
The proposed requirement for individuals to have at least one 24-hour
break in any 7-day period (Sec. 26.199(d)(2)(ii)), (2) the proposed
requirement for individuals to have at least one 48-hour break in any
14-day period (Sec. 26.199(d)(2)(iii)), and (3) the proposed
requirement for collective work hour limits (Sec. 26.199(f)). Although
many comments supported these provisions, a number of comments
expressed concerns regarding the potential unintended consequences,
necessity, or effectiveness of these requirements.
Several stakeholders commented that the proposed requirement for
individuals to have at least one 24-hour break in any 7-day period
would not provide the flexibility necessary for licensees to
effectively schedule 8-hour shifts (many licensees currently use a
schedule that includes periods of 7 consecutive 8-hour shifts).
Regarding the requirement for individuals to have at least one 48-hour
break in any 14-day period, several stakeholders expressed concern
about the potential effect of this requirement on the ability of
licensees to provide adequate coverage for unplanned maintenance (e.g.,
to quickly restore inoperable equipment). Other stakeholders commented
that a 48-hour break during a series of night shifts would adversely
affect an individual's circadian adjustment of individuals to the night
shift. Several stakeholders commented that the collective work hour
limits were unnecessary because they were redundant with other
requirements whereas other stakeholders expressed the concern that the
collective work hour limits were not adequate because they did not
address worker fatigue on an individual basis. Additional comments
concerning collective work hour limits included the concern that
collective work hour calculations were susceptible to manipulation and
that the maximum 8-week period of exemption from the collective work
hour limits would not be adequate for certain longer term outages.
The NRC believes the concerns described above may be largely
addressed through alternative requirements that would be equally
effective in meeting the objectives of the rulemaking. To address
stakeholder comment regarding the proposed minimum break requirements
and collective work hour controls, the staff is considering the
following concept for amending the proposed fatigue management
provisions.
Proposed Resolution of Comments Concerning Minimum Break Requirements
and Collective Work Hour Controls
Delete the following provisions from the proposed rulemaking:
Requirement for a minimum 24-hour break in any 7-day
period.
Requirement for a minimum 48-hour break in any 14-day
period.
Collective work hour limits.
Add the following minimum break requirements:
Individuals subject to work hour controls as described by
Sec. 26.199(a)(1-5) of the proposed rule would be required to have a
minimum 36-hour break in any 9-day period. This requirement would be
applicable whether the plant is operating or in an outage.
While the plant is operating, individuals subject to work
hour controls as described by Sec. 26.199(a)(1-5) of the proposed rule
would be subject to the following break requirements:
--Individuals working 8 hour shift schedules would be required to
have a minimum of one 24-hour break per week, averaged over a shift
cycle.
--Individuals working 10 hour shift schedules would be required to
have a minimum of two 24-hour breaks per week, averaged over a shift
cycle.
--Individuals working 12 hour shift schedules would be required to
have a minimum of three 24-hour breaks per week, averaged over a shift
cycle.
During the first 60 days of a plant outage, individuals
subject to work hour controls as described by Sec. 26.199(a)(1-4) of
the proposed rule would be required to have a minimum of three 24-hour
breaks in each successive (i.e., non-rolling) 15-day period.
During the first 60 days of a plant outage, security
outage, or increased threat condition, individuals subject to work hour
controls as described by Sec. 26.199(a)(5) of the proposed rule would
be required to have a minimum of four 24-hour breaks in each successive
(i.e., non-rolling) 15-day period.
Beginning day 61 of a plant outage, security outage, or
increased threat condition, individuals subject to work hour controls
as described by Sec. 26.199(a)(1-5) of the proposed rule would be
subject to the controls applicable to an operating plant, except as
follows:
--The maximum 60 day period for application of outage or increased
threat condition limits could be extended 7 days for an individual or
[[Page 13787]]
group of individuals for each independent 7 day period the individual
or group works not more than 48 hours during the outage or increased
threat condition.
Implementation Details
For purposes of compliance with the minimum 24-hour break
requirements:
Because work schedules may contain shifts of more than one
length (e.g., combinations of 8 and 12-hour shifts), shift schedules
would be defined as follows:
[rtrif] 8-hour shift schedules average not more than 9 hours per
day.
[rtrif] 10-hour shift schedule average not more than 11 hours per
day.
[rtrif] 12-hour shift schedule average not more than 12 hours per
day.
Only break periods of 24 consecutive hours or more would
count towards the break requirements.
Breaks would be counted in 24-hour increments. For
example, a 36 hour break would count as one 24-hour break. A break of
48 consecutive hours would count as two 24-hour breaks.
The maximum duration of a shift cycle over which a
licensee would be able to average breaks would be limited to six weeks.
Any portion of a plant outage, security outage, or
increased threat condition that does not comprise a complete 15 day
period would be subject to the individual work hour limits in proposed
Sec. 26.199(d)(1), Sec. 26.199(d)(1)(I), and the requirement
described above for a minimum 36-hour break in any 9-day period.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of March, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eileen McKenna,
Chief, Financial, Policy and Rulemaking Program, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-3922 Filed 3-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P