[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 227 (Friday, November 27, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62257-62259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-28380]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 26
[Docket No. PRM-26-3; NRC-2009-0482]
Professional Reactor Operator Society; Receipt of Petition for
Rulemaking
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and
requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking dated October 16,
2009, filed by the Professional Reactor Operator Society (petitioner).
The petition was docketed by the NRC and has been assigned Docket No.
PRM-26-3. The petitioner is requesting that the NRC amend the
regulations that govern fitness for duty programs. Specifically, the
petitioner requests that the definition of ``unit outage'' be changed
to ``site outage'' and be amended to clarify the way licensees schedule
manpower on the front and
[[Page 62258]]
back end of outages. The petitioner believes the suggested amendment
would require licensees to abandon past practice that could impact
licensees' ability to safely execute future outages and would help to
ensure that nuclear utilities continue to perform outages in a safe and
efficient manner.
DATE: Submit comments by February 10, 2010. Comments received after
this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance
of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or
before this date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this petition by any one of the
following methods. Please include PRM-26-3 in the subject line of your
comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic
form will be made available for public inspection. Personal
information, such as your name, address, telephone number, e-mail
address, etc., will not be removed from your submission.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and
search for documents filed under Docket ID [NRC-2009-0482]. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, 301-492-3668; e-mail
[email protected].
Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff.
E-mail comments to: [email protected]. If you do not receive
a reply e-mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact
us directly at 301-415-1677.
Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland
20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays, telephone
number 301-415-1677.
Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at
301-415-1101.
Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed
electronically on the public computers located at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), Room O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor
will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments,
may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the Federal eRulemaking
Portal http://www.regulations.gov.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC, are
available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain
entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference
staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
[email protected].
For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief,
Rulemaking, Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative
Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001. The petition is also available
electronically in ADAMS at ML092960440.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555. Telephone: 301-492-3663 or Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642 or E-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The NRC has received a petition for rulemaking dated October 16,
2009, submitted by Robert N. Meyer on behalf of the Professional
Reactor Operator Society (PROS) (petitioner). PROS is an organization
of reactor operators employed at nuclear power plant sites throughout
the U.S. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR part 26,
``Fitness for Duty Programs.'' Specifically, the petitioner requests
that the definition of Unit outage in Sec. 26.5, ``Definitions'' be
changed to Site outage. The petitioner also requests that the text of
the definition be amended to clarify the way licensees schedule
manpower on the front and back end of outages. The NRC has determined
that the petition meets the threshold sufficiency requirements for a
petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. The petition was docketed
by the NRC as PRM-26-3 on October 21, 2009. The NRC is soliciting
public comment on the petition for rulemaking.
Discussion of the Petition
The petitioner states that the final rule the NRC published on
March 31, 2008 (73 FR 16965), pertaining to fitness for duty programs
of nuclear facility licensees required all licensees to establish
``clear and enforceable requirements for the management of worker
fatigue.'' The petitioner notes that the term ``unit outage'' was added
to clarify that a specific reactor has to be disconnected from the
electrical grid to be declared in an outage. The petitioner states that
the NRC added this term in response to a stakeholder comment raised
during a public meeting to clarify that for the purpose of implanting
work hour controls, a reactor unit would only be considered in an
outage if disconnected from the power grid, not when reactor power was
reduced for repair but not shut down. The NRC determined that its
definition provides a clearly identifiable plant state for applying the
work hour controls specified in Sec. Sec. 26.205(d)(4) and (5).
The petitioner disagrees with the rationale for this definition
and recommends two changes:
(1) The definition should be changed from ``unit outage'' to ``site
outage'' and
(2) Clarify the definition of ``site outage'' to ``up to one week
prior to disconnecting the reactor unit from the grid and up to 75
percent turbine power following reconnection to the grid.'' The current
definition of ``unit outage'' in Sec. 26.5 ``means, for the purposes
of this part, that the reactor unit is disconnected from the electrical
grid.''
The petitioner states that its proposal applies to dual-unit sites
with a shared control room where the reactor operators are licensed on
both units to allow the control room to use a 12-hour supercrew,
resulting in less work hours for personnel on the operating unit. The
petitioner believes this is particularly important in view of the
recently implemented work hours rule. The petitioner notes that
although the outage work for many crews falls between the breaker open
and close phases, this is not true for operations crews. Just before
shutdown, activities such as the switch from the non-outage shift to
the outage shift schedules, training for the control room crew who will
actually perform the shutdown, and final work schedule walkdowns occur.
The petitioner states that many facilities combine the operations
crews into four groups (two for days and two for nights) one week
before shutdown to accommodate the additional workload. The petitioner
believes the pre-outage advantages to the proposed amendment
[[Page 62259]]
include the crew's acclimation to the outage shift before shutdown and
familiarization with each other, a transition period from normal shift
rotation to the outage shift rotation, adequate staffing for outage
crew preparation, and better preparation time to safely perform the
large amount of infrequently performed tasks associated with plant
shutdown. The petitioner also cites outage preparation that will be
performed by outage crews, not regular shift personnel whose main
responsibility should be monitoring the operating reactor, and more
preparation time to keep the stress level as low as possible in the
Control Room to reduce the chance of errors and improve overall safety
as additional pre-outage advantages to its proposed amendment.
The petitioner also states that post-outage advantages to its
proposed definition include allowing major equipment to be tested and
placed in service before release of support personnel, ensuring there
are sufficient personnel on duty to handle any emergencies following an
outage, and allowing for a controlled transition from an outage shift
schedule to the normal schedule to eliminate worker fatigue because the
same crews who were performing outage functions are now the ones
operating the reactor. The petitioner sees the only disadvantage to its
proposal is that the total outage time may be longer, meaning that
personnel operating the plant just before shutdown or startup may have
worked beyond the hourly limitations normally permitted for an
operating reactor but believes the advantages cited far outweigh any
potential disadvantage. The petitioner states that it is not proposing
any change in the work hour allowance specified in Sec. 26.205(d)(4)
but believes its proposed amendment would allow licensees more
flexibility for applying the outage working hour limitations when
preparing for and recovering from an outage.
Lastly, the petitioner states that its proposed amendment would not
require an environmental impact statement, does not contain any new or
amended information requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, and does not involve backfit issues.
The petitioner has concluded that adopting its proposed amendment
will help ensure that nuclear power facilities continue to perform
outages safely and efficiently.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of November 2009.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. E9-28380 Filed 11-25-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P