[Federal Register: March 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 62)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 16965-17235]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31mr08-14]
[[Page 16965]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
10 CFR Part 26
Fitness for Duty Programs; Final Rule
[[Page 16966]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
10 CFR Part 26
RIN 3150-AF12
Fitness for Duty Programs
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its
regulations for Fitness for Duty (FFD) programs to update these
requirements and enhance consistency with advances in other relevant
Federal rules and guidelines, including the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS) Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace
Drug Testing Programs, and other Federal drug and alcohol testing
programs that impose similar requirements on the private sector. The
amendments require nuclear power plant licensees and other entities,
including facilities possessing Category 1A material, to strengthen the
effectiveness of their FFD programs. In addition, the amendments
require nuclear power plant licensees and other entities to enhance
consistency between with the FFD programs with NRC's access
authorization requirements for nuclear power plants. The amendments
also require nuclear power plant licensees to ensure against worker
fatigue adversely affecting public health and safety and the common
defense and security by establishing clear and enforceable requirements
for the management of worker fatigue. The final rule ensures that
individuals who are subject to these regulations are trustworthy and
reliable, as demonstrated by avoiding substance abuse; are not under
the influence of drugs or alcohol while performing their duties; and
are not mentally or physically impaired from any other cause that would
in any way adversely affect their ability to perform their duties
safely and competently.
This final rule also grants, in part, a petition for rulemaking
(PRM-26-1) submitted by Virginia Electric and Power Company (now
Dominion Virginia Power) on December 30, 1993, by relaxing several
required FFD program audit frequencies, and partially grants a petition
for rulemaking (PRM-26-2) submitted by Barry Quigley on December 28,
1999.
DATES: This final rule is effective April 30, 2008. However, licensees
and other applicable entities may defer implementation of this rule,
except for Subparts I and K, until March 31, 2009. Subpart I must be
implemented by licensees and other applicable entities no later than
October 1, 2009. Licensees and other applicable entities shall comply
with the requirements of Subpart K as of April 30, 2008.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Diec, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001, telephone (301) 415-2834, Timothy McCune, Office of Nuclear
Security and Incident Response, telephone (301) 415-6474, Dr. David R.
Desaulniers, Office of New Reactors, telephone (301) 415-1043, or Dr.
Valerie Barnes, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone (301)
415-5944. All of the above contacts may also be reached by e-mail to
FITNESSFORDUTY@NRC.GOV.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Drug and Alcohol Testing Provisions, and General Fitness-for-
Duty Program Provisions
B. Worker Fatigue Provisions
C. Combined Part 26 Rulemaking
D. Public Input Accepted Since 2000 ``Affirmed Rule''
II. Petitions and Request for Exemption
A. Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-1
B. Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-2
C. Request for Exemption under 10 CFR 26.6
III. Abbreviations
IV. Discussion of Final Action
A. Overview
B. Goals of the Rulemaking Activity
C. Overview of Final Rule
D. Inclusion of Worker Fatigue Provisions in 10 CFR Part 26
V. Summary of Public Comments Submitted on Proposed Rule
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis of Substantive Changes
VII. Availability of Documents
VIII. Criminal Penalties
IX. Agreement State Compatibility
X. Plain Language
XI. Voluntary Consensus Standards
XII. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Environmental
Assessment
XIII. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement
XIV. Regulatory Analysis
A. Aggregate Analysis
B. Screening Review for Disaggregation
C. Disaggregation of Worker Fatigue Provisions
XV. Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
XVI. Backfit Analysis
A. Consideration of Fuel Fabrication Facilities and Gaseous
Diffusion Plants
B. Aggregate Backfit Analysis
C. Screening Review for Disaggregation
XVII. References
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 26
I. Background
A. Drug and Alcohol Testing Provisions, and General Fitness-for-Duty
Program Provisions
On June 7, 1989, the Commission announced the adoption of a new
rule, 10 CFR Part 26, Fitness for Duty Programs (54 FR 24468), that
required each licensee authorized to operate or construct a nuclear
power reactor to implement an FFD program for all personnel having
unescorted access to the protected area of its plant. A subsequent
final rule published in the Federal Register on June 3, 1993 (58 FR
31467), expanded the scope of Part 26 to include licensees authorized
to possess, use, or transport formula quantities of Strategic Special
Nuclear Materials (SSNM).
At the time the FFD rule was published in 1989, the Commission
directed the NRC staff to continue to analyze licensee programs, assess
the effectiveness of the rule, and recommend appropriate improvements
or changes. The NRC staff reviewed information from several sources
including inspections, periodic reports by licensees on FFD program
performance, reports of significant FFD events, industry-sponsored
meetings, and current research literature, as well as initiatives by
industry, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
of the Department of HHS (SAMHSA, formerly the National Institute on
Drug Abuse), and SAMHSA's Drug Testing Advisory Board, and recommended
improvements and changes.
As a result, the NRC published proposed amendments to the FFD rule
in the Federal Register on May 9, 1996 (61 FR 21105). The 90-day public
comment period for the proposed rule closed on August 7, 1996. The NRC
staff reviewed and considered public comments on the proposed rule, and
submitted a final rule to the Commission in a Commission paper (SECY-
00-0159), dated July 26, 2000. The Commission affirmed the rule in a
Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM-M001204A) dated December 4, 2000.
The affirmed rule was sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
to obtain a clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The request
for comments on the clearance was published in the Federal Register on
February 2, 2001 (66 FR 8812). OMB and NRC received public comments
that objected to some aspects of the rule. In SECY-01-0134, dated July
23, 2001, the NRC staff recommended withdrawing the request for
clearance and preparing a new proposed rule. In a Staff
[[Page 16967]]
Requirements Memorandum (SRM-SECY-01-0134) dated October 3, 2001, the
Commission approved the staff's recommendation to withdraw the request
for clearance and prepare a new proposed rule.
B. Worker Fatigue Provisions
The NRC's ``Policy on Factors Causing Fatigue of Operating
Personnel at Nuclear Reactors'' (referred to in this document as NRC's
Policy on Worker Fatigue) was first published in the Federal Register
on February 18, 1982 (47 FR 7352), and later issued through Generic
Letter (GL) 82-12, ``Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours,'' on June
15, 1982 (referred to in this document as GL 82-12). In GL 82-12, the
NRC requested licensees to revise the administrative section of their
technical specifications to ensure that plant administrative procedures
were consistent with the work-hour guidelines. Those guidelines were:
(1) An individual should not be permitted to work more than 16
consecutive hours (excluding shift turnover time);
(2) An individual should not be permitted to work more than 16
hours in any 24-hour period, nor more than 24 hours in any 48-hour
period, nor more than 72 hours in any 7-day period (all excluding shift
turnover time);
(3) A break of at least 8 hours should be allowed between work
periods (including shift turnover time); and
(4) Except during extended shutdown periods, the use of overtime
should be considered on an individual basis and not for the entire
staff on a shift.
Further, the guidelines permitted deviations from these limits in
very unusual circumstances if authorized by the plant manager, his
deputy, or higher levels of management in some cases. The NRC's Policy
on Worker Fatigue was incorporated, directly or by reference, and with
variations in wording and detail, into the technical specifications of
all but three nuclear power plant sites who implemented the concept
using other administrative controls.
When 10 CFR Part 26 was issued on June 7, 1989 (54 FR 24468), it
focused on establishing requirements for preventing and detecting
personnel impairment from drugs and alcohol. However, consistent with
SRM-SECY-88-129, dated July 18, 1988, several requirements addressed
other causes of impairment, including fatigue. Those requirements
included general performance objectives [Sec. 26.10(a) and (b)] that
provided for ``reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant personnel
* * * are not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal,
or mentally or physically impaired from any cause'' and ``early
detection of persons who are not fit to perform activities within the
scope of this part.'' A requirement was also included in Sec. 26.20(a)
for licensee policies to ``address other factors that could affect
fitness for duty such as mental stress, fatigue and illness.''
In a letter dated February 25, 1999, Congressmen Dingell, Klink,
and Markey expressed concerns to former NRC Chairman Shirley Ann
Jackson that low staffing levels and excessive overtime may present a
serious safety hazard at some commercial nuclear power plants. The
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) expressed similar concerns on March
18, 1999, in a letter from David Lochbaum to Chairman Jackson, and in
the UCS report ``Overtime and Staffing Problems in the Commercial
Nuclear Power Industry,'' dated March 1999. In a letter dated May 18,
1999, to the Congressmen, the Chairman stated that the NRC staff would
assess the need to revise the policy.
On September 28, 1999, the Commission received a petition for
rulemaking (PRM-26-2) from Barry Quigley. (The petition is discussed in
greater detail in Section II.B of this document.) The petition
requested that the NRC amend 10 CFR Parts 26 and 55 to establish clear
and enforceable work-hour limits to mitigate the effects of fatigue for
nuclear power plant personnel performing safety-related work.
The UCS petitioned the NRC on April 24, 2001, under 10 CFR 2.206,
to issue a Demand for Information (DFI) to specified licensees. The
petition asserted that Wackenhut Corporation has the contractual right
to fire security guards who refuse to report for mandatory overtime,
and that this contractual right conflicts with 10 CFR Part 26. The NRC
denied the DFI request (ADAMS Accession No. ML013230169), but addressed
the concerns of the petition through the NRC's generic communication
process. On May 10, 2002, the NRC issued NRC Regulatory Issue Summary
(RIS) 2002-07, ``Clarification of NRC Requirements Applicable to Worker
Fatigue and Self-Declarations of Fitness-for-Duty.'' The RIS addressed
the applicability of 10 CFR Part 26 to worker fatigue, the potential
for sanctions related to worker FFD concerns to have adverse
implications for maintaining a work environment conducive to reporting
FFD concerns, and the protections afforded workers by 10 CFR 50.7,
``Employee Protection.''
On January 10, 2002, in SRM-SECY-01-0113, the Commission approved a
rulemaking plan, ``Fatigue of Workers at Nuclear Power Plants,'' dated
June 22, 2001 (referred to in this document as SECY-01-0113). Under the
approved plan, the NRC initiated a rulemaking to incorporate fatigue
management into 10 CFR Part 26 in order to strengthen the effectiveness
of FFD programs at nuclear power plants in ensuring against worker
fatigue adversely affecting public health and safety and the common
defense and security by establishing clear and enforceable requirements
for the management of worker fatigue.
During the development of the fatigue management requirements, the
NRC observed an increase in concerns (e.g., allegations, media and
public stakeholder reports) related to the workload and fatigue of
security personnel following the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001. Subsequent to an NRC review of the control of work hours for
security force personnel, and public interactions with stakeholders,
the Commission issued Order EA-03-038 on April 29, 2003, requiring
compensatory measures related to fitness-for-duty enhancements for
security personnel at nuclear power plants, including work hour limits.
The compensatory measures imposed by Order EA-03-038 were similar
to the guidelines of the NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue. The
compensatory measures differed from the Policy guidelines in a few
areas in which the NRC believed it was necessary to address previously
identified deficiencies in the guidelines, including the need to
address cumulative fatigue from prolonged periods of extended work
hours, matters unique to security personnel and stakeholder input
obtained through public meetings concerning the worker fatigue
rulemaking and the order. The NRC imposed the requirements in the order
to provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public
health and safety and common defense and security continue to be
adequately protected. The provisions specified in 10 CFR Part 26,
Subpart I, Managing Fatigue, for security force personnel replace the
requirements imposed by the order. Differences between the requirements
in Subpart I and the requirements imposed by the order, and the
rationale for those differences, are discussed in Section IV.D of this
document.
C. Combined Part 26 Rulemaking
On March 29, 2004, in COMSECY-04-0014, the NRC staff informed the
Commission of the status of both
[[Page 16968]]
rulemaking activities. The NRC staff also noted that because both
rulemaking activities were being completed in parallel, the draft
proposed fatigue rule language was based on the draft language in the
proposed overall revision to Part 26, rather than on the former
language in Part 26. Therefore, meaningful public comment could be
confounded by the simultaneous promulgation of two draft rules which
are somewhat interdependent, and staff action to address a comment on
one proposed rule could easily impact the other proposed rule, creating
a high potential for the need to issue one or both proposed rules. In
SRM-COMSECY-04-0014, dated May 25, 2004, the Commission directed the
staff to combine the rulemaking related to nuclear power plant worker
fatigue with the ongoing Part 26 rulemaking activity. This combined
final rule withdraws the proposed rule published on May 9, 1996.
D. Public Input Accepted Since 2000 ``Affirmed Rule''
In preparing this rule, the NRC considered comments received by OMB
on the prior Part 26 final rule affirmed by the Commission in an SRM
dated December 4, 2000. The NRC also considered feedback received from
industry, as well as other interested parties and members of the
public. The NRC held 11 stakeholder meetings on the drug and alcohol
testing portions of the rule during 2001-2004, and 13 stakeholder
meetings on the fatigue portions of the rule during 2002-2003.
Following the Commission's decision to combine the two rulemaking
efforts, the NRC held one stakeholder meeting on the combined rule in
July, 2004, and two subsequent meetings on the fatigue provisions of
the combined rule in August and September 2004.
Throughout the time the meetings were being held, drafts of
proposed rule language, regulatory and backfit analysis data, and other
pertinent information were made available to the public on the
Internet, as announced in the Federal Register on February 15, 2002 (67
FR 7093). The NRC received feedback from stakeholders both through the
public meetings and the NRC's Web site. Address questions about our
rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail
cag@nrc.gov.
These interactions with stakeholders were a significant benefit to
the NRC in developing the language for the final rule in a manner to
ensure it is clearly understandable, will be consistently interpreted,
and does not result in unintended consequences. Many of the
stakeholders' comments directly resulted in changes. When a comment was
included in a provision, the comment is discussed in Section VI of this
document.
Many comments were received during the years the meetings were
held. The draft proposed rule language was changed and re-posted to the
Web numerous times.
Following the publication of the August 25, 2005 (70 FR 50442)
proposed rule, the NRC proposed a 4-month period to accept public
comment submissions. However, the NRC accepted comments for several
months after the proposed deadline for the submission of public
comments. These comments are discussed in Section V of this document.
The NRC also held several public meetings after the proposed rule
was published to increase stakeholder involvement in the rulemaking.
These meetings were held on September 21, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML052420363), November 7 and 9, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052990048),
December 15, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML053400002), and March 29-30,
2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060650535).
II. Petitions and Request for Exemption
A. Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-1
On December 30, 1993, Virginia Electric and Power Company (now
Dominion Virginia Power) submitted a Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-26-1)
requesting relaxation of the required 1-year audit frequency of
licensee FFD programs and the program elements of contractors and
vendors (C/Vs) that are relied upon by licensees. The petition
requested that the first sentence of former 10 CFR 26.80(a) be amended
to read:
Each licensee subject to this Part shall audit the fitness-for-
duty program nominally every 24 months * * *. In addition, audits
must be conducted, nominally every 24 months, of those portions of
fitness-for-duty programs implemented by contractors and vendors.
In a letter dated March 14, 1994, the NRC informed the petitioner
that the petition would be addressed in a proposed rulemaking that was
under development. The NRC has periodically communicated with the
petitioner regarding the status of this rulemaking since that time.
Section 26.41(b) of the final rule partially grants two aspects of
the petition. The required audit frequency for licensees and other
entities who are subject to 10 CFR Part 26 has been reduced from the
nominal 1-year frequency in the former rule to a nominal 2-year
frequency. Further, audits of C/V services that are performed on site
and under the direct daily supervision or observation of licensee
personnel will be conducted as part of the 2-year audits of the
licensee or other entity's FFD program, under Sec. 26.41(b).
Section 26.41(c)(1) of the final rule partially denies two aspects
of the petition. The nominal annual audit requirement for HHS-certified
laboratories has been retained. In addition, the annual audit
requirement has been retained for FFD program elements provided by C/Vs
whose personnel ``are off site or are not under the direct daily
supervision or observation of licensee personnel.''
The bases for these changes to the audit requirements in the rule
are addressed in the subsequent sections of this supplementary
information.
B. Petition for Rulemaking PRM-26-2
On September 28, 1999, Barry Quigley submitted a Petition for
Rulemaking (PRM-26-2) requesting that the NRC amend 10 CFR Parts 26 and
55 to establish clear and enforceable work hour limits to mitigate the
effects of fatigue for nuclear power plant personnel performing safety-
related work. The PRM was published for public comment on December 1,
1999, (64 FR 67202). As described in detail in Attachment 3 to SECY-01-
0113, the petition requested the NRC to:
(1) Add enforceable working hour limits to 10 CFR Part 26;
(2) Add a criterion to 10 CFR 55.33(a)(1) to require evaluation of
known sleeping disorders;
(3) Revise the NRC Enforcement Policy to include examples of
working hour violations that warrant various NRC sanctions; and
(4) Revise NRC Form 396 to include self-disclosure of sleeping
disorders by licensed operators.
The NRC received 176 comment letters in response to the petition.
The majority of the comments (157) were in favor of a rule. These
comments were principally from individuals and public interest groups.
Comments received from licensees, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
and Winston and Strawn, a law firm representing several utilities, were
opposed to PRM-26-2. A summary of the comments and responses is
available in SECY-01-0113 as Attachment 2. This document may be
obtained from the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov, by selecting the
electronic reading room and then collections of documents by type. It
is also available in the NRC's Agencywide Documentation and Management
[[Page 16969]]
System (ADAMS) under Package Accession Number ML010180224.
Although the NRC received many comments concerning the specific
requirements proposed in PRM-26-2, in general, letters in support of
the rulemaking--
(1) Cited the importance of ensuring that personnel who perform
safety-related functions are not impaired by fatigue;
(2) Expressed concern that the NRC does not have a regulation
limiting working hours and the perception that the NRC lacks the
authority to enforce the guidelines in the NRC's Policy on Worker
Fatigue;
(3) Asserted that the guidelines are ambiguous and that licensees
interpret the guidelines as not applicable when the plant is in an
outage;
(4) Asserted that ``the NRC appears to look the other way'' when
licensee work scheduling practices appear inconsistent with the
guidelines; and
(5) Expressed the concern that utility restructuring and cost
competition will cause reductions in staffing levels and increased
working hours and fatigue.
Further, several commenters noted that the Federal Government has
established work-hour limits for personnel in other industries and
suggested that similar limits should apply to nuclear power plant
workers.
In general, comments that opposed the petition expressed the
opinion that existing regulatory requirements (i.e., technical
specifications and 10 CFR Part 26) are adequate to ensure that
personnel are not impaired by fatigue, that the requirements would
impose an unnecessary and excessive burden that could not be justified
through a backfit analysis, and that industry performance data refute
the petitioner's argument that a rule is necessary to prevent fatigued
personnel from performing safety-related work.
The NRC evaluated the merits of PRM-26-2, the comments received in
response to the PRM, and assessed the Policy on Worker Fatigue. The NRC
concluded that the petitioner proposed a comprehensive set of
requirements that could reasonably be expected to effectively address
fatigue from individual and programmatic causes. However, the NRC
concluded that it is possible to achieve these objectives through
alternative requirements that are more flexible, more directly focused
on risk, and more aligned and integrated with current regulatory
requirements. Therefore, the final rule grants, PRM-26-2, in part. A
detailed discussion of the principal findings that led to the decision
to grant, in part, PRM-26-2 through rulemaking are included in Section
IV.D of this document. In addition, for item 3 of PRM-26-2, the NRC
revised Inspection Procedure (IP) 71130.08, ``Fitness For Duty
Programs'' on February 19, 2004, to reflect the requirements of Order
EA-03-038, dated April 29, 2003, which required compensatory measures
related to fitness-for-duty enhancements for security personnel at
nuclear power plants, including work hour limits. The NRC will
similarly revise this inspection procedure following issuance of the
final rule. The self-disclosure of sleeping disorders by licensed
operators (item 4) is being addressed by the NRC as a separate effort
from this rule through changes to Regulatory Guide 1.134, ``Medical
Evaluation of Licensed Personnel at Nuclear Power Plants.''
C. Request for Exemption Under 10 CFR 26.6
The former rule required random drug and alcohol testing for
personnel with unescorted access to the protected area of a nuclear
power plant. By letter dated March 13, 1990, the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 1245 requested an
exemption from random testing for clerical, warehouse, and maintenance
workers at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) under
the provisions of 10 CFR 26.6. The NRC denied the request and IBEW
Local 1245 sought judicial review. In 1992, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the NRC's denial of the request (IBEW, Local 1245 v.
NRC, No. 90-70647, 9th Cir., June 11, 1992). In its opinion, the court
said that random testing may well be impermissible for clerical workers
at Diablo Canyon who perform no safety-sensitive work and have no
access to vital areas. However, in the record before the court at that
time, IBEW Local 1245 had not established that such a group existed. On
January 26 and December 6, 1993, IBEW Local 1245 renewed its request
for exemption, specifically asking that the NRC exempt from 10 CFR Part
26 requirements for random drug testing, clerical employees at Diablo
Canyon who are members of Local 1245 of the IBEW and who have
unescorted access to the protected area (PA) only, but not to the
radiologically controlled areas (RCAs) or vital areas (VAs) and who are
not required to staff the plant's emergency response center (ERC). The
PA is the area inside the security fence of a nuclear power plant,
which surrounds the entire plant, and the immediately surrounding area,
whereas the VAs enclose key safety systems and are located within the
PA. The RCAs contain elevated levels of radiation or contamination and
are generally located within the PA. The ERC is located off site and is
where the licensee evaluates and coordinates licensee activities
related to an emergency, and communicates to Federal, State and local
authorities responding to radiological emergencies. The NRC requested
public comment on the issue in the Federal Register of May 11, 1994 (59
FR 24373). Comments were received from the nuclear industry, which
largely opposed a reduction in the scope of random testing, and from
elements of the IBEW, including Local 1245, which favored it. In SRM-
SECY-04-0229, dated January 10, 2005 (available on the NRC Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/srm/), the
Commission denied the IBEW exemption request because it--
(1) Would endanger the common defense and security (as a result of
increasing the likelihood of an insider threat); and
(2) Was not in the public interest (because reducing the scope of
random drug testing could increase the risk to public health and safety
due to a greater risk of both sabotage (insider threat due to
vulnerability to coercion) and of an accident (impaired worker)).
Consequently, this final rule maintains the former requirement for
random drug and alcohol testing for all personnel with unescorted
access to the PA at a nuclear power plant.
III. Abbreviations
The following abbreviations and acronyms are used in this Statement
of Considerations.
AEA Atomic Energy Act
ASDs Alcohol screening devices
BAC Blood alcohol concentration
CPL Conforming products list
C/V Contractor/vendor
DOT Department of Transportation
EAP Employee assistance program
EBT Evidential breath testing device
EPRI Electric Power Research Institute
FFD Fitness for duty
GC/MS Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
ITAAC Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria
KAs Knowledge and abilities
LOD Limit of detection
LOQ Limit of quantitation
mg/dL Milligrams per deciliter
MRO Medical Review Officer
NEI Nuclear Energy Institute
ng/dL Nanograms per deciliter
NHTSA National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
[[Page 16970]]
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NSF National Sleep Foundation
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDFFDI Potentially disqualifying fitness-for-duty information
pH potential of hydrogen
POGO Project on Government Oversight
PROS Professional Reactor Operator Society
QA/QC Quality assurance/quality control
SAE Substance Abuse Expert
SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
SSNM Strategic special nuclear material
THC Tetrahydrocannabinol, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic
acid
UCS Union of Concerned Scientists
6-AM 6-acetylmorphine
IV. Discussion of Final Action
A. Overview
A review of FFD program experience confirms that the former
regulatory approach of 10 CFR Part 26 was fundamentally sound and
provided a means of deterrence and detection of substance abuse at
licensee facilities. FFD Program Performance Reports through 2005 are
published on the NRC's Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/
ops-experience/fitness-for-duty-programs/performance-reports.html.
Nonetheless, the NRC believes that revisions were needed to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs; enhance consistency
with advances in similar rules and guidelines, including HHS' Mandatory
Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (herein called
the HHS Guidelines) and other Federal drug and alcohol testing programs
that place similar requirements on the private sector; strengthen the
effectiveness of FFD programs at nuclear power plants in ensuring
against worker fatigue adversely affecting public health and safety and
the common defense and security by establishing clear and enforceable
requirements for the management of worker fatigue; enhance consistency
with the NRC's access authorization requirements; improve clarity in
the organization and language of the rule; and improve Part 26 by
eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements.
B. Goals of the Rulemaking Activity
The NRC is amending 10 CFR Part 26, Fitness For Duty Programs. The
goals are to:
(1) Update and enhance the consistency of 10 CFR Part 26 with
advances in other relevant Federal rules and guidelines, including the
HHS Guidelines and other Federal drug and alcohol testing programs
(e.g., those required by the U.S. Department of Transportation [DOT])
that impose similar requirements on the private sector;
(2) Strengthen the effectiveness of FFD programs at nuclear power
plants in ensuring against worker fatigue adversely affecting public
health and safety and the common defense and security by establishing
clear and enforceable requirements for the management of worker
fatigue;
(3) Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs;
(4) Improve consistency between FFD requirements and access
authorization requirements established in 10 CFR 73.56, as supplemented
by orders to nuclear power plant licensees dated January 7, 2003;
(5) Improve Part 26 by eliminating or modifying unnecessary
requirements;
(6) Improve clarity in the organization and language of the rule;
and
(7) Protect the privacy and other rights (including due process) of
individuals who are subject to Part 26.
Each of these goals is expected to result in substantial
improvements in FFD programs. Many changes in the final rule relate to
each goal. The major changes for each subpart and the reasons for those
changes are described in Section IV.C of this document. For each of the
many specific changes, detailed discussions are included in Section VI.
However, the following discussion provides a description of each goal,
a basis for the need to accomplish that goal, and several examples of
changes to the former rule that will contribute to meeting the goal.
Goal 1--Update and enhance the consistency of 10 CFR Part 26 with
advances in other relevant Federal rules and guidelines, including HHS
Guidelines and other Federal drug and alcohol testing programs (e.g.,
those required by the DOT that impose similar requirements on the
private sector.) Goal 1 is central to this rulemaking activity. Many
changes are included in the final rule to maintain consistency with
advances in the conduct of FFD programs, including changes in the HHS
Guidelines. The 1994, 1998, and 2004 revisions to the HHS Guidelines
differ substantially from the 1988 version of the HHS Guidelines, upon
which the former rule was based.
The President of the United States designated HHS as the agency
responsible for the Federal workplace drug testing program. HHS' SAMHSA
is responsible for maintaining the HHS drug testing guidelines based on
the most recent research and the accumulation of lessons learned from
the Federal drug testing program, as well as others who are regulated.
The NRC has historically relied on HHS to establish the technical
requirements for urine specimen collection, testing, and evaluation,
and has only deviated from HHS' guidelines for considerations that are
specific to the nuclear industry. Updating Part 26 to be consistent
with the most recent HHS Guidelines ensures that NRC regulations
continue to be scientifically and technically sound.
Further, the HHS-certified laboratories that Part 26 requires
licensees to use for drug testing are required by HHS to follow the HHS
Guidelines in order to retain their certification. Basing Part 26 on
older versions of the HHS Guidelines, or deviating from those
Guidelines, increases the cost of drug testing for the nuclear
industry. Therefore, updating Part 26 to increase consistency with the
HHS Guidelines not only ensures that Part 26 is based on the best
scientific and technical information available, but also avoids
imposing an unnecessary and costly regulatory burden on the nuclear
industry.
One example of an improvement from enhancing consistency with the
HHS Guidelines is that several cutoff levels for detection of various
drugs have been updated, including a revised lower cutoff level for the
marijuana metabolite THC. The lower cutoff level will provide greater
assurance that individuals who use marijuana are identified.
Additionally, a revision to the HHS Guidelines, published in the
Federal Register on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19643) as a final rule,
includes requirements for specimen validity tests to determine whether
a urine specimen has been adulterated, diluted, or substituted. This
final rule adopts significant portions of the final HHS specimen
validity testing provisions. The new validity testing requirements will
substantially improve the effectiveness of the measures to guard
against subversion of the testing process that are contained in former
Part 26.
Several other provisions for drug testing are under consideration
by HHS and were published as a proposed rule for public comment in the
Federal Register on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19672). One change to 10 CFR
Part 26 that is included from the proposed HHS Guidelines is permission
for licensees to use validity screening tests to determine whether a
urine specimen must be
[[Page 16971]]
subject to further testing at an HHS-certified laboratory because it
may have been adulterated, diluted, or substituted, in lieu of the
instrumented validity testing required in the April 13, 2004, final
version of the HHS Guidelines. Although the HHS Guidelines that would
permit Federal drug testing programs to use validity screening tests
for initial testing of urine specimens are not yet final, some NRC
licensees desired the flexibility to use these testing methods. A
technical basis for use of those methods is included in section VI.
However, the NRC is not including other provisions in the proposed HHS
Guidelines at this time. Those provisions include permitting the drug
testing of specimens other than urine (e.g., hair, saliva, sweat),
requirements for split specimen procedures for all specimens, and HHS
certification of instrumented initial test facilities, which would be
analogous to licensee testing facilities. Should such provisions be
included in final HHS Guidelines in the future, the NRC will consider
incorporating them into 10 CFR Part 26 at that time.
In addition to the changes to 10 CFR Part 26 that incorporate the
recent revisions to the HHS Guidelines, the DOT revised its Procedures
for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs (49 CFR
Part 40, 65 FR 41944; August 9, 2001) to include the use of oral fluids
(i.e., saliva) as acceptable specimens for initial alcohol screening
tests. This final rule also reflects the new oral fluids testing
technology to provide FFD programs with increased flexibility in
administering initial alcohol tests.
Because the HHS Guidelines do not establish requirements for
alcohol testing, NRC relies on the DOT regulations, in part, to ensure
that the alcohol testing provisions of Part 26 remain scientifically
sound and legally defensible. Because the DOT programs test a much
larger number of individuals in comparison to the number of alcohol
tests that are conducted under Part 26, basing the NRC's alcohol
testing regulations on portions of the DOT regulations reflects the
lessons learned from that larger population.
Goal 2--Strengthen the effectiveness of FFD programs at nuclear
power plants in ensuring against worker fatigue adversely affecting
public health and safety and the common defense and security by
establishing clear and enforceable requirements for the management of
worker fatigue. This goal is central to this rulemaking activity.
Subpart I, Managing Fatigue, adds clear and enforceable requirements
for licensee management of worker fatigue to 10 CFR Part 26. The
requirements reduce the potential for worker fatigue and therefore,
strengthen the effectiveness of FFD programs at nuclear power plants
and substantially increase the protection of public health and safety
and the common defense and security. Section VI of this document
discusses the specific reasons for each worker fatigue provision.
Section IV.D provides a detailed discussion of the overall basis for
establishing fatigue management requirements for FFD programs, and the
benefits expected to result.
Goal 3--Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs.
The NRC has gained experience in the actual implementation of FFD
programs since Part 26 was originally promulgated. The NRC is making
many changes throughout Part 26 based on that experience in order to
improve the industry's programs, specifically to increase both the
effectiveness of the programs in achieving the goals of Part 26 and the
efficiency of program operations. Increasing the effectiveness and
efficiency of FFD programs will enhance the protection of public health
and safety and the common defense and security.
One example of a change related to Goal 3 is the reduction in the
period within which pre-access testing must be performed from 60 days,
in former Sec. 26.24(a)(1), to 30 days or less, in Subpart C [Granting
and Maintaining Authorization]. This change improves the effectiveness
of the pre-access test in detecting drug and alcohol use by individuals
who are applying for authorization to have the types of access or
perform the duties that require them to be subject to Part 26. Reducing
the number of breath specimens required for alcohol testing from two
each for initial and confirmatory testing, in former Section 2.4(g)(18)
in Appendix A to Part 26, to one specimen for the initial test and one
for the confirmatory test also increases the efficiency of FFD programs
without compromising the accuracy and validity of alcohol test results.
Another example of rule changes related to Goal 3 is establishing a
regulatory framework for the management of worker fatigue that
appropriately balances the need for flexibility to manage plant
exigencies with the need for more readily enforceable requirements and
efficient NRC oversight of licensee compliance with the requirements
and performance objectives of the rule.
Goal 4--Improve consistency between FFD requirements and the access
authorization requirements established in 10 CFR 73.56, as supplemented
by orders to nuclear power plant licensees dated January 7, 2003. Part
26 and the access authorization requirements each contain provisions
that require establishing the trustworthiness and reliability of
personnel before granting unescorted access to the protected areas of
nuclear power plants. The NRC determined that, because both sets of
requirements share this same goal, revising Part 26 was necessary to
clarify the relationship between these requirements, particularly for
licensee access authorization decisions regarding personnel who move
between sites with some interruption in their status of having
unescorted access to a nuclear power plant. In addition, some
requirements in former Part 26 addressed the granting of temporary
unescorted access. In response to the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the current
threat environment, the Commission took action to curtail the use of
temporary unescorted access at commercial nuclear power plants.
Temporary unescorted access was eliminated by orders issued January 7,
2003, which imposed enhancements to existing access authorization
programs. Therefore, it was necessary to revise the related provisions
in Part 26.
Goal 5--Improve 10 CFR Part 26 by eliminating or modifying
unnecessary requirements. The final rule incorporates a number of
changes to eliminate or modify unnecessary requirements. The experience
NRC has gained over the years since Part 26 was promulgated has
enhanced the agency's understanding of implementation issues
experienced by the industry, and the NRC is now eliminating or
modifying some provisions, while at the same time maintaining
protection of public health and safety and the common defense and
security.
For example, because of inconsistencies in how licensees
interpreted the FFD and access authorization requirements for
conducting employment inquiries, many licensees contacted an
individual's previous employers twice--once to obtain the information
required under Part 26 and once to obtain the information required for
access authorization. The revisions to Part 26 clarify that licensees
may obtain information to satisfy FFD suitable inquiry requirements and
related access authorization requirements at the same time when
conducting an employment inquiry.
[[Page 16972]]
Goal 6--Improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule. The final rule is organized to facilitate implementation, as
compared to the former rule, which has generated many questions from
licensees. Therefore, in the final rule, the NRC has substantially
reorganized the requirements to eliminate redundancies, to group
related requirements, and to present requirements in the order in which
they apply to licensees' FFD processes. In addition, the NRC has made
many language changes to improve clarity. This substantial
reorganization, which substantially reduces the likelihood of
variations in FFD programs across the industry through differing
interpretations of the rule, improves the protection of public health
and safety and the common defense and security. The final rule is
clearer in both organization and language, and is expected to result in
more uniform implementation, and, consequently, more consistency in
achieving the Part 26 goals.
In contrast to certain NRC regulations, Part 26 includes a
considerable number of detailed requirements. In the public meetings
held during the development of the final rule, industry representatives
indicated that they consider this level of detail necessary to help
protect individual privacy and ensure consistency in implementing the
requirements. Additionally, industry representatives indicated that
this high level of detail can help to avoid unnecessary litigation
between licensees and individual personnel regarding worker non-
compliance with specific drug and alcohol testing performance steps.
Such litigation would be more likely if those specific performance
steps were not required by NRC rule. The level of detail and the
enhanced clarity in the new language and organization included in Part
26 have eliminated the need for a guidance document for provisions
pertaining to drug and alcohol testing. Industry representatives
commented that a guidance document would not have the same weight as a
rule, and that both licensees and individuals should be protected fully
with rigor and specificity in a rule. Therefore, industry desired the
rule to be more specific and detailed, in lieu of a guidance document.
Goal 7--Protect the privacy rights and other rights (including due
process) of individuals who are subject to 10 CFR Part 26. This goal
was an implicit objective of the former rule, and the final rule
continues to protect the privacy and other rights of individuals
(including due process) who are subject to 10 CFR Part 26. The NRC,
DOT, and HHS have all gained experience in implementing workplace drug
and alcohol testing programs. This experience has led the DOT and HHS
to modify many of their requirements for such testing to more clearly
protect privacy and other rights of individuals. Many of the changes to
Part 26 related to this goal are based on either DOT or HHS
requirements. The NRC believes the protection of individual rights to
be of the highest importance and is making changes to Part 26 to ensure
that those rights are protected through rule language developed using
the best available information. One example of such a change is that
the final rule prohibits any testing of ``Bottle B, the second portion
of a split urine specimen, or retesting an aliquot of a specimen''
without the donor's permission.
C. Overview of Final Rule
The final rule is divided into subparts that contain related
requirements. Each subpart is assigned a descriptive title to aid users
in locating rule provisions and to simplify cross-referencing within
the final rule. By grouping related requirements and presenting them
generally in the order in which they apply to licensees' and other
entities' FFD processes, the final rule improves the ease of
implementing the rule. For example, the final rule adds Subpart K [FFD
Programs for Construction] to consolidate FFD requirements for new
reactor construction. Also, the provisions that were contained in
Subparts J [Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements] and K
[Inspections, Violations, and Penalties] of the proposed rule are now
contained in Subparts N and O, respectively, of the final rule.
The major topics addressed in each subpart and the reasons that the
NRC made major changes to the former rule are described below. A
detailed cross-reference table between the former and final Part 26
provisions is included at the end of this notice.
Subpart A Administrative Provisions
The first subpart, Subpart A, replaces the General Provisions
portion of the former rule, but continues to address the same subject
matter. Thus, Subpart A addresses the purpose and scope of the rule,
provides definitions of important terms used in the final rule, and
updates former provisions related to requests for specific exemptions,
interpretations of the rule, and communications with the NRC. The final
rule also adds a section to Subpart A that consolidates FFD program
applicability requirements for categories of individuals.
Subpart B Program Elements
Subpart B of the final rule reorganizes and amends former
Sec. Sec. 26.10 through 26.29. These sections of the former rule
specified the performance objectives that FFD programs were required to
meet and the FFD program elements that licensees and other entities
were required to implement to meet the performance objectives. However,
the final rule does not include former Sec. 26.27 [Management actions
and sanctions to be imposed] in Subpart B for two reasons. First, the
final rule is reorganized to be consistent with the order in which
licensees and other entities implement their programs. Because Subpart
B is focused on establishing the framework of FFD programs, it would be
premature to present requirements related to implementing the FFD
program (i.e., imposing sanctions on an individual for violating the
FFD policy) at this point in the rule. Second, the subject matter of
former Sec. 26.27 is sufficiently important and complex that a
separate subpart is warranted. Therefore, the final rule presents
requirements related to management actions and sanctions in Subpart D
[Management Actions and Sanctions to be Imposed].
Subpart C Granting and Maintaining Authorization
Subpart C of the final rule substantially amends former FFD
requirements related to the process that licensees and other entities
must follow in determining whether an individual is trustworthy and
reliable, as demonstrated by avoiding substance abuse, and can be
expected to perform his or her job duties safely and competently. The
final rule introduces the concept of (authorization( to Part 26 to
refer to the status of an individual who the licensee or other entity
has determined can be trusted to avoid substance abuse, and, therefore,
may be permitted to have the types of access or perform the duties
described in Sec. 26.4 [FFD program applicability to categories of
individuals], as a result of the process described in this subpart. For
example, in the case of nuclear power plant personnel, a licensee may
permit an individual who is ``authorized'' under Part 26 to have
unescorted access to protected areas in nuclear power plants if the
individual's job requires such access.
The NRC has published other requirements, such as 10 CFR 73.56,
that establish additional steps that licensees and other entities must
take as part of the process of determining whether to grant unescorted
access to an
[[Page 16973]]
individual or permit an individual to maintain unescorted access to
protected areas. These additional requirements focus on aspects of an
individual's character and reputation other than substance abuse, and,
among other steps, require the licensee or other entities who are
subject to the rule to conduct a psychological assessment of the
individual, perform a credit and criminal history check, and interview
individuals who have knowledge of the applicant for authorization.
However, historically there have been some inconsistencies and
redundancies between the Part 26 requirements related to granting and
maintaining unescorted access and the other related regulations,
particularly the NRC's access authorization requirements for nuclear
power plant personnel. The inconsistencies have led to many
implementation questions from licensees, as well as inconsistencies in
how licensees have implemented the requirements. The redundancies have
imposed an unnecessary burden on licensees in other cases. Therefore, a
central goal of adding Subpart C to the final rule is to eliminate
those inconsistencies and redundancies to ensure that licensees and the
other entities who are subject to the rule have clear and easily
interpretable requirements to follow when determining whether to grant
or maintain an individual's unescorted access under Part 26 and also
under other, related requirements, including, but not limited to, the
January 7, 2003 access authorization orders issued by the NRC to
nuclear power plant licensees.
The requirements in Subpart C are based on several fundamental
changes to the NRC's approach to the authorization requirements in
former Part 26. The primary concern, which Subpart C is designed to
address, is the necessity of increasing the rigor of the authorization
process to provide reasonable assurance that any individual who is
granted and maintains authorization is trustworthy and reliable, as
demonstrated by avoiding substance abuse. The necessity for increased
rigor in the authorization process is discussed in Section VI of this
document with respect to Sec. 26.23(a) in terms of the increased
insider threat since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. One
change to former Part 26 authorization requirements that reflects this
concern is the elimination of temporary access authorization
requirements in the second sentence of former Sec. 26.27(a)(4). Other
changes are discussed in Section VI with respect to the specific
provisions that incorporate them.
A second, related change to the NRC's approach to authorization
requirements, which has informed Subpart C, is an increased concern
with the sharing of information about individuals between licensees and
other entities. At the time the former Part 26 was developed, the
industry structure was different and personnel transfers between
licensees (i.e., leaving the employment of one licensee to work for
another licensee) with interruptions in authorization were less common.
Most licensees operated plants at a single site and maintained an FFD
program that applied only to that site. When an individual left
employment at one site and began working for another licensee, the
individual was subject to a different FFD program that often had
different requirements. Because some licensees were reluctant to share
information about previous employees with the new employer, licensees
often did not have access to the information the previous licensee had
gathered about the individual and were required to gather the necessary
information again. The additional effort to collect information that
another licensee held created an unnecessary burden on both licensees.
But, because few individuals transferred, the burden was not excessive.
However, since 1989, the industry has undergone significant
consolidation and developed new business practices to use its workforce
more efficiently. Industry efforts to better use expertise and staffing
resources have resulted in the development of a large transient
workforce within the nuclear industry that travels from site to site as
needed, such as roving outage crews. Although the industry has always
relied on C/Vs for special expertise and staff for outages, the number
of transient personnel who work solely in the nuclear industry has
increased and the length of time they are on site has decreased.
Because the former FFD regulations were written on the basis that
individual licensees would maintain independent, site-specific FFD
programs and shared limited information, and that the majority of
nuclear personnel would remain at one site for years, the former
regulations did not adequately address the transfer of personnel
between sites.
These changes in the industry have increased the need for
information sharing among licensees and C/Vs. The increased insider
threat since September 11, 2001, has also heightened the need for
information sharing among licensees and C/Vs to ensure that licensees
and other entities have information that is as complete as possible
about an individual when making an authorization decision. To address
this need, the access authorization orders issued by the NRC to nuclear
power plant licensees on January 7, 2003, mandated increased sharing of
information. In addition, Subpart C requires licensees and other
entities to collect and share greater amounts of information than under
the former rule, subject to the protections of individuals' privacy
that are specified in Sec. 26.37 [Protection of information]. As a
result, individuals who are subject to the rule will establish a
detailed ``track record'' within the industry that will follow them if
they change jobs and move to a new position that requires them to be
granted authorization by another licensee or entity who is subject to
the rule. This increased information sharing contributes to providing
reasonable assurance that individuals who are granted and maintain
authorization under Part 26 are trustworthy and reliable when
individuals move between FFD programs.
However, a consequence of increased information sharing is that one
violation of any licensee's FFD policy has greater potential to end an
individual's career. Although an individual who has an active substance
abuse problem cannot be permitted to have unescorted access to
protected areas, the NRC continues to affirm that individuals who
pursue treatment, stop abusing drugs or alcohol, and maintain sobriety
for an extended period of time should regain the public's trust. The
length of time that an individual must maintain sobriety in order to
demonstrate that he or she can again be trusted with the public's
health and safety and the common defense and security has been a matter
of debate since Part 26 was originally under development. However, the
research literature continues to indicate that individuals who maintain
sobriety past the first 3 years following treatment have substantially
reduced recidivism rates (i.e., relapsing into substance abuse) than
during the first 3 years after treatment. There is also a further drop
in recidivism rates after 5 years of sobriety.
Despite these research findings, some individuals who have had one
confirmed positive test result have been prevented from working in
operating nuclear power plants. The increased information sharing
required under Subpart C has the potential to result in a greater
number of these individuals being banned from working in the industry.
Therefore, the NRC has added several requirements to Subpart C to
[[Page 16974]]
minimize these consequences for individuals who are able to demonstrate
that they are effectively coping with a substance abuse problem.
Additional requirements for protecting information to be gathered about
individuals under Part 26 are specified in Sec. 26.37. The detailed
changes to former requirements are discussed in Section VI with respect
to the specific provisions that incorporate these requirements.
In general, the authorization requirements in Subpart C are
structured according to whether an individual who has applied for
authorization has previously held authorization under Part 26. If an
individual has not established a ``track record'' in the industry, the
final rule requires licensees and other entities to meet an extensive
set of requirements before granting authorization to the individual. If
an individual has established a favorable track record in the industry,
the amount of original information gathering that the final rule
requires licensees and other entities to complete before granting
authorization to the individual is reduced. The need for original
information gathering in these instances is reduced because licensees
and other entities will have access to all of the information that
previous FFD programs have collected about the individual under the
final rule.
For individuals who have established a favorable track record in
the industry, the steps that licensees and other entities are required
to complete in order to grant authorization to an individual also
depends upon the length of time that has elapsed since the individual's
last period of authorization was terminated and the amount of
supervision to which the individual was subject during the
interruption. (The term ``interruption'' refers to the interval of time
between periods during which an individual holds authorization under
Part 26.) In general, the more time that has elapsed since an
individual's last period of authorization ended, the more steps that
the final rule requires licensees and other entities to complete before
granting authorization to the individual. However, if the individual
was subject to behavioral observation under a Part 26 program or
continued to be subject to random drug and alcohol testing during the
interruption, the final rule requires licensees and other entities to
complete fewer steps in order to grant authorization to the individual.
There are several reasons that the final rule requires fewer steps in
the authorization process for these individuals.
First, individuals who have established a favorable work history in
the industry have demonstrated their trustworthiness and reliability
from previous periods of authorization, so they pose less potential
risk to public health and safety and the common defense and security
than individuals who are new to the industry. Much is known about these
individuals. Not only were they subject to the initial background
screening requirements before they were initially granted
authorization; but, while they were working under a Part 26 program,
they were watched carefully through on-going behavioral observation,
repeatedly attained negative results from random drug and alcohol
tests, and demonstrated the ability to consistently comply with the
many procedural requirements that are necessary to perform work safely
at operating power reactor facilities.
Second, individuals who have established a favorable work history
in the industry and whose authorization has been interrupted for only a
short period are unlikely to develop an active substance abuse problem
during the interruption. The shorter the period of time since the
individual's last period of authorization ended, the less likely it is
that the individual has developed an active substance abuse problem or
undergone other significant changes in lifestyle or character that
would diminish his or her trustworthiness, reliability, and ability to
perform work safely and competently.
Further, if the individual was also subject to supervision under
some elements of a Part 26 program (e.g., behavioral observation, a
requirement to report any arrests, random drug and alcohol testing)
during the period that his or her authorization was interrupted, the
higher the assurance that the individual does not have an active
substance problem. And, it is less likely that the individual could
have undergone significant changes in lifestyle or character that would
be undetected.
Therefore, the final rule establishes categories of requirements
for granting authorization to an individual that vary, based upon
whether the individual has previously held authorization under Part 26;
whether the individual's last period of authorization was terminated
favorably or unfavorably; how long it has been since the individual
last held authorization under Part 26; and whether the individual was
subject to any elements of a Part 26 program during the interruption
period. Section 26.55 [Initial authorization] establishes authorization
requirements for individuals who have not previously held authorization
under Part 26 and individuals who have not held authorization within
the past 3 years. Section 26.57 [Authorization update] establishes
authorization requirements for individuals who previously held
authorization under Part 26, whose last period of authorization was
terminated favorably more than 1 year ago but less than 3 years ago.
Section 26.59 [Authorization reinstatement] establishes authorization
requirements for individuals who previously held authorization under
Part 26 and whose last period of authorization was terminated favorably
within the past year. Section 26.69 [Authorization with potentially
disqualifying fitness-for-duty information] defines the steps that
licensees and other entities must take in granting authorization to an
individual about whom potentially disqualifying FFD information has
been disclosed or discovered.
The time periods used to establish these categories of
authorization requirements are consistent with the categories
established in the access authorization orders issued by the NRC to
nuclear power plant licensees on January 7, 2003. Basing the
requirements on elapsed time is consistent with the programs of other
Federal agencies who have similar needs to control access to sensitive
information and protected areas. In addition, these time periods have
been used successfully within nuclear power plant access authorization
programs since 1989 and have met the NRC's goal of ensuring that
individuals who are granted unescorted access are trustworthy and
reliable. Therefore, the final rule incorporates these time periods
within Part 26.
In general, the steps that are required under this part to grant
authorization to an individual who has recently held authorization and
whose most recent period of authorization was terminated favorably are
less extensive than the steps required for applicants for authorization
who are new to the industry or those who have not recently held
authorization. In addition, the NRC has strengthened the requirements
for a rigorous evaluation process contained in the former Sec.
26.27(e) that licensees and other entities are required to meet before
granting authorization to an individual about whom potentially
disqualifying FFD information has been disclosed or discovered (see
Sec. 26.69). The final rule requires licensees and other entities to
obtain and review a written self-disclosure from the applicant and an
employment history, and ensure that a suitable inquiry and pre-access
drug and alcohol testing are completed before granting authorization to
an individual,
[[Page 16975]]
with certain exceptions. The exceptions to the self-disclosure and
employment history, suitable inquiry, and pre-access testing
requirements are specified in Sec. Sec. 26.61 [Self-disclosure and
employment history], 26.63 [Suitable inquiry], and 26.65 [Pre-access
drug and alcohol testing], respectively. The final rule also requires
licensees and other entities to ensure that applicants are subject to
random testing, as specified in Sec. 26.67 [Random drug and alcohol
testing of individuals who have applied for authorization].
Subpart D Management Actions and Sanctions
Subpart D of the final rule replaces former Sec. 26.27(b) and (c)
and divides the former provisions into two separate sections that
specify requirements for responding to FFD policy violations in Sec.
26.75 [Sanctions], and indications of impairment in Sec. 26.77
[Management actions regarding possible impairment]. The final rule adds
a new Sec. 26.73 [Applicability] to specify the entities and
individuals to whom the requirements of the subpart apply. The former
rule has been reorganized to generally reflect the order in which the
requirements apply to licensees' and other entities' FFD processes, and
to group related requirements into separate sections. Therefore, the
NRC has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve
clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
In general, subpart D includes three significant changes from the
related provisions in the former rule that are each intended to provide
a stronger deterrent to engaging in the unwanted actions specified in
the subpart. First, the final rule increases the severity of the
minimum sanctions that are required if an individual violates a
licensee's or other entity's FFD policy. The more stringent sanctions
are necessary in order to strengthen the effectiveness of the rule in
providing reasonable assurance that individuals who are subject to this
part are trustworthy and reliable, as demonstrated by avoiding
substance abuse, and by increasing the assurance that only individuals
who are fit for duty are permitted to have the types of access or
perform the duties listed in Sec. 26.4.
Second, the final rule requires licensees and other entities who
are subject to the rule to impose the same sanctions for an FFD
violation involving the abuse of alcohol as required for the abuse of
illegal drugs. Impairment caused by alcohol abuse creates a risk to
public health and safety that is fundamentally similar to the risk
posed by the use of illegal drugs. However, some licensees have imposed
lesser sanctions for alcohol violations, an approach that is
inconsistent with the NRC's intent. Therefore, the final rule rectifies
this situation by explicitly requiring the same minimum sanctions for
abuse of alcohol as formerly required for the use of illegal drugs.
Third, the final rule adds the sanction of permanent denial of
authorization for any individuals who subvert or attempt to subvert the
testing process. The former rule permitted licensees and other entities
to have flexibility in establishing sanctions for actions such as
refusing to submit to testing and attempting to subvert the testing
process by submitting an adulterated or substitute specimen. As a
result, different FFD programs imposed different sanctions and some
individuals were granted authorization or permitted to maintain
authorization when they committed such acts. However, acts to defeat
the testing process indicate that an individual is not trustworthy and
reliable, and suggest that the individual may be engaging in substance
abuse that could pose a risk to public health and safety and the common
defense and security. Therefore, the final rule establishes a minimum
sanction that all FFD programs must impose to deter attempts to subvert
the testing process, as well as provide reasonable assurance that
individuals who are granted and maintain authorization can be trusted
to comply with the rules and regulations to which they are subject.
These three changes have been made to meet Goal 3 of this
rulemaking to improve the effectiveness of FFD programs. The NRC has
made other changes to former Sec. 26.27(b) and (c) in subpart D
primarily to eliminate or modify unnecessary requirements and clarify
the intent of former provisions.
Subpart E Collecting for Testing
Subpart E of the final rule reorganizes and amends the requirements
related to collecting specimens for drug and alcohol testing that were
contained in former Sec. 26.24 [Chemical and alcohol testing] and
interspersed throughout former Appendix A to Part 26. The subpart
groups the related requirements and presents them in the order in which
they would be implemented by FFD programs. The final rule also
eliminates some redundancies in the provisions of the former rule that
were related to specimen collections. The NRC has made these changes to
meet Goal 6 of the rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization
and language of the rule.
In general, the procedures in this subpart are more detailed than
those in Appendix A to the former rule and NRC regulations that are
based on a risk-informed, performance-based approach, for several
reasons. First, the more detailed procedures in subpart E will increase
the consistency of Part 26 drug and alcohol specimen collection
procedures with those of other Federal agencies and therefore, take
advantage of the scientific and technical advances that have been made
in workplace drug and alcohol testing programs since the former Part 26
was promulgated, as discussed in Section IV.B of this document. Second,
the final rule permits FFD programs to accept and rely upon other FFD
programs that are implemented under this part, as well as the programs
of other Federal and State agencies, to a much greater extent than is
permitted under the former rule. The permission to rely on other
programs improves the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs
(Goal 3 of the rulemaking) and improves the rule by eliminating or
modifying unnecessary requirements (Goal 5 of the rulemaking). For
example, under Sec. 26.69(b)(6), the final rule permits licensees and
other entities to rely on another Part 26 program's drug and alcohol
followup testing of an individual who has violated an FFD policy and is
consequently required to have at least 15 followup tests within the 3-
year period following the violation, and is transferring from one
licensee's site to another.
The final rule requires the receiving licensee or entity to
continue the followup testing program. However, the final rule permits
the licensee or other entity to accept the followup testing that was
completed by the previous FFD program when determining the remaining
number of followup tests to which the individual must be subject and
the period of time during which the individual must continue to be
subject to followup testing. Therefore, because the final rule permits
this reliance on other programs, more detailed requirements for
conducting the activities on which other FFD programs may rely,
including drug and alcohol testing, are necessary to provide greater
assurance that all Part 26 programs meet minimum standards. Third, the
final rule incorporates a greater level of detail in the specimen
collection procedures of the final rule for the reasons discussed in
Section IV.B.
The NRC has made other major changes to the former rule's
requirements for collecting specimens for drug and alcohol testing to
incorporate specimen validity testing
[[Page 16976]]
requirements from the HHS Guidelines into Part 26 (Goal 1 of this
rulemaking) and modify former alcohol testing requirements to improve
the efficiency of FFD programs (Goal 3 of the rulemaking), while
continuing to protect or enhance individuals' rights to privacy and due
process under the rule (Goal 7 of the rulemaking).
Subpart F Licensee Testing Facilities
Subpart F of the final rule presents detailed requirements for
conducting initial urine specimen validity and drug tests at licensee
testing facilities, as permitted in Sec. 26.24(d)(1) of the former
rule and Sec. 26.31(d)(3)(ii) of the final rule. The subpart is
entitled, ``Licensee Testing Facilities,'' for brevity, but permits
other entities who are subject to the rule to establish and operate
drug testing facilities under the final rule.
The NRC has added this subpart to the final rule to group together
in a single subpart the rule's requirements that are related to
licensee testing facilities, which were intermixed with requirements
related to drug testing at HHS-certified laboratories in Appendix A to
Part 26 in the former rule. The final rule presents the requirements
that are applicable to licensee testing facilities and HHS-certified
laboratories in two separate subparts because the provisions of the
former rule were not always clear with respect to which requirements
applied to which type of testing facility. Also, the final rule
includes the requirements that apply to both types of facilities in
both subparts so that it is unnecessary for licensees and other
entities who do not operate licensee testing facilities to be concerned
with any provisions in subpart F. Although many of the requirements in
this subpart are redundant with similar requirements in subpart G
[Laboratories Certified by HHS], these changes meet Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
The most important change in subpart F to the former requirements
for licensee testing facilities is the addition of new requirements for
licensee testing facilities to conduct initial urine specimen validity
testing, based on similar provisions contained in the most recent
revision to the HHS Guidelines (69 FR 19643; April 13, 2004). The
reasons for requiring initial urine specimen validity testing are
discussed with respect to Sec. 26.31(d)(3)(ii). The NRC believes that
it is necessary for licensee testing facilities to conduct specimen
validity testing because Part 26 permits licensees and other entities
to make authorization decisions based on initial drug test results from
such facilities. Thus, the rule permits licensees and other entities to
grant authorization to an individual who has negative initial test
results from pre-access testing without further analysis of the urine
specimen by an HHS-certified laboratory. If the initial test results
from the licensee testing facility are inaccurate because the urine
specimen was adulterated or substituted, the licensee or other entity
could grant authorization to an individual who poses a risk to public
health and safety and the common defense and security. Similarly, if an
individual who has been selected for random testing submits an
adulterated or substituted specimen that is not detected by initial
tests at the licensee testing facility, the individual would be
permitted to maintain authorization if the results of drug testing are
negative. Therefore, in order to increase the likelihood that
individuals who may be using drugs and attempting to defeat the testing
process are detected, and to ensure that they are not permitted to be
granted or maintain authorization, the NRC has concluded that it is
necessary to require licensee testing facilities to conduct urine
specimen validity tests.
However, in consideration of the increased costs and burden that
are associated with instrumented initial validity testing, subpart F
permits licensee testing facilities to use commercially available
validity screening tests of urine specimens, which may be a less
expensive alternative than the instrumented initial validity tests
required in the current HHS Guidelines. As discussed in Section VI with
respect to Sec. 26.5 [Definitions], the final rule uses the term
``validity screening test'' to refer to these commercially available
tests. The term ``initial validity test'' refers to instrumented
validity testing.
At the same time that the HHS published its regulations to require
specimen validity testing, which have been incorporated in the final
rule, HHS also published a proposed revision to the Guidelines (69 FR
19673; April 13, 2004) that would permit the use of validity screening
devices for the detection of substitution and the presence of
adulterants in urine specimens. These devices include non-instrumented
devices with visually-read endpoints as well as semi-automated or
automated instrumented testing devices with machine-read end points.
Specimen validity tests conducted with these devices use colorimetric
assays, which is the same scientific principle as the initial tests
conducted at HHS-certified laboratories. Non-instrumented specimen
validity devices for urine testing have been shown to detect
adulterants in urine specimens and creatinine concentrations on tests
that were conducted on specimens that were spiked with drug analytes.
However, the results from the preliminary studies are variable.
Therefore, the proposed HHS Guidelines include extensive performance
testing requirements for these devices, which subpart F also
incorporates. Such performance testing is necessary to ensure that
validity test results based on using these devices are accurate.
Subpart G Laboratories Certified by the Department of Health and Human
Services
Subpart G presents together in a single subpart requirements
related to the HHS-certified laboratories that are used by licensees
and other entities who are subject to Part 26 for validity and drug
testing. The requirements in this subpart group together the former
requirements in Appendix A to Part 26 as they relate to HHS-certified
laboratories. However, the final rule updates the former requirements
to be consistent with the HHS Guidelines that were published in the
Federal Register on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19643). The most important
changes to the former rule's requirements for HHS-certified
laboratories are the incorporation of extensive requirements for urine
specimen validity testing.
Subpart H Determining Fitness-for-Duty Policy Violations and
Determining Fitness
Subpart H in the final rule reorganizes, clarifies, and enhances
former requirements related to the decisions that medical review
officers (MROs) and other healthcare professionals must make under Part
26 to provide input to licensees' and other entities' management
decisions with respect to granting and permitting an individual to
maintain authorization under Subpart C and also with respect to
imposing sanctions and taking actions to prevent an individual from
performing duties that require an individual to be subject to this part
under Subpart D. The former requirements, which were interspersed
throughout the rule, are grouped together in Subpart H to make them
easier to locate within the final rule, consistent with Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule. The subpart also makes several significant changes to the former
requirements.
In general, Subpart H includes more detailed requirements for
determining
[[Page 16977]]
FFD policy violations and conducting determinations of fitness than
were included in the former rule. The NRC has added these more detailed
requirements in response to implementation questions that the NRC has
received from licensees since Part 26 was first promulgated, lessons
learned from NRC inspections of FFD programs, and the experience of
other Federal agencies that similarly require workplace drug and
alcohol testing. However, the NRC's primary concern in establishing
more detailed requirements is to enhance the consistency in how FFD
policy violations and fitness are determined among Part 26 programs.
The final rule permits licensees and other entities to rely on the
determinations made by other Part 26 programs to a greater extent than
the former rule. For example, Sec. 26.63(b) of the final rule permits
licensees and other entities to rely upon a previous licensee's or
other entity's determinations of fitness, as well as their reviews and
resolutions of potentially disqualifying FFD information, from previous
periods of authorization. The reasons for adding these permissions were
discussed previously in this section, with respect to Subpart C.
However, to ensure that all licensees' and other entities'
determinations of FFD policy violations and fitness can be relied upon
by other FFD programs, it is necessary to enhance the former
requirements and establish clear minimum standards for those processes.
Therefore, the subpart includes greater detail to meet Goal 3 of this
rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs.
Under the final rule, licensees and other entities continue to be
prohibited from imposing sanctions on an individual who has a positive
confirmatory drug test result from testing at the HHS-certified
laboratory until the MRO has had an opportunity to discuss the result
with the individual and determines that there is no legitimate medical
explanation for the positive result(s). The final rule extends this
requirement to the review of positive confirmatory validity test
results, consistent with the addition of requirements to conduct
validity testing throughout the final rule, as discussed in Section VI
with respect to Sec. 26.31(d)(3)(I). An MRO review of adulterated or
substituted validity test results from an HHS-certified laboratory
before a licensee or other entity imposes sanctions on an individual is
necessary for the same reasons that an MRO review is required of
positive drug test results. That is, there may be legitimate medical
reasons for the adulterated or substituted test result and the test
result may not indicate that the donor has violated the FFD policy,
which in this case would mean that he or she has not attempted to
subvert the testing process. The NRC added a requirement for the MRO to
review adulterated or substituted validity test results to meet Goal 7
of this rulemaking to protect the privacy and other rights (including
due process) of individuals who are subject to Part 26 and ensure that
the individuals are afforded accurate and consistent testing. The HHS
Guidelines also require the MRO to review adulterated and substituted
validity test results. Therefore, adding this requirement to the final
rule also meets Goal 1 of this rulemaking to update and enhance the
consistency of Part 26 with advances in other relevant Federal rules
and guidelines.
Another significant change that the final rule makes to former
requirements is the establishment of a new position within FFD
programs--the ``substance abuse expert'' (SAE). The SAE is responsible
for performing a determination of fitness, which is determining whether
there are indications that an individual may be in violation of the
licensee's or other entity's FFD policy or is otherwise unable to
safely and competently perform his or her duties, in those instances in
which an individual may not be fit for duty for reasons related to drug
or alcohol abuse. The NRC has added the SAE position for several
reasons.
First, some MROs who provide services under Part 26 have indicated
that they do not feel qualified to assess the presence and severity of
substance abuse disorders, make treatment recommendations, and
determine when an individual who has had a substance abuse disorder may
again be able to safely and competently perform duties under this part.
The focus of MRO responsibilities under Part 26 and other Federal
workplace drug testing programs is on the medical evaluation of
positive, adulterated, substituted, or invalid test results, which
requires a knowledge of substance abuse. However, some MROs do not have
the extensive knowledge of substance abuse disorders that is necessary
to make determinations of fitness and treatment recommendations as
required under this part. Therefore, the final rule permits MROs to
serve as SAEs if they meet the qualifications for this role that are
established in this subpart. But, the rule requires licensees and other
entities to rely on other healthcare professionals who have the
necessary qualifications to conduct determinations of fitness if the
MRO does not meet the SAE qualification requirements.
Second, the NRC believes that healthcare professionals other than
licensed physicians may have the requisite knowledge and skills to
serve as SAEs under the rule. Therefore, the final rule defines the
position of SAE in terms of the knowledge and skills required, and
permits healthcare professionals other than licensed physicians to
serve in this role.
Third, under the final rule, FFD programs are permitted to accept
determinations of fitness and treatment plans from other Part 26
programs, if an individual who has had a substance abuse problem will
be granted authorization by another licensee or entity. Consequently,
detailed requirements for the qualifications and responsibilities of
the SAE are necessary to ensure consistency among FFD programs.
Detailed requirements for the qualifications and responsibilities of
the SAE are necessary because of the key role the SAE plays in assuring
the common defense and security and public health and safety when
making a determination of fitness on which licensees and other entities
will rely when making authorization decisions. It is critical that SAEs
understand the potential impact on the common defense and security and
public health and safety when determining that an individual who has
had an active substance abuse problem has resolved the problem and is
again worthy of the public's trust. A sophisticated understanding of
substance abuse problems and the types of adverse behaviors they may
involve, including knowledge of the research literature and clinical
experience, is necessary to inform the SAE's clinical judgments in
these circumstances.
The NRC has adapted many of the provisions in the subpart from
related DOT requirements regarding the ``substance abuse professional''
[49 CFR Part 40, subpart O; 65 FR 41944; August 9, 2001]. The SAE role
is not defined in former Part 26.
Subpart I Managing Fatigue
Subpart I of the final rule strengthens the effectiveness of FFD
programs at nuclear power plants in ensuring against worker fatigue
adversely affecting public health and safety and the common defense and
security by establishing clear and enforceable requirements for the
management of worker fatigue. Because the overall rationale for
including Subpart I, Managing Fatigue, in Part 26, is detailed
[[Page 16978]]
and extensive, this discussion is presented separately in Section IV.D.
Subpart J [Reserved]
As a result of adding Subpart K [FFD Programs for Construction] to
the final rule, several subparts of the proposed rule have been
renumbered. The provisions contained in Subpart J of the proposed rule
have been moved to Subpart N of the final rule.
Subpart K FFD Programs for Construction
As a result of reorganizating the final rule, the NRC has moved the
provisions contained in Subpart K of the proposed rule [Inspections,
Violations, and Penalties] to Subpart O of the final rule.
The final rule adds a new Subpart K to revise and increase the
level of detail of FFD requirements contained in Sec. 26.3(e) of the
proposed rule pertaining to FFD programs for new reactor construction.
The NRC has added this subpart to the final rule to clarify the
requirements applicable to entities conducting construction activities
in response to public comments that raised concerns with the proposed
requirements. A detailed description of these public comments, as well
as a summary of the features and objectives of Subpart K can be found
in Section V of this document. A detailed section-by-section analysis
of the provisions of Subpart K can be found in Section VI of this
document.
Subpart L [Reserved]
Subpart M [Reserved]
Subpart N Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
As a result of reorganizing the proposed rule, the NRC has moved
the provisions contained in Subpart J of the proposed rule
[Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements] to this subpart of the final
rule. The NRC has added Subpart N to the final rule to reorganize the
former rule's requirements for maintaining records and submitting
reports to the NRC. The subpart combines and amends two sections of the
former rule: Section 26.71 [Recordkeeping requirements] and Sec. 26.73
[Reporting requirements], and incorporates the record retention
requirements of former Sec. Sec. 26.21(b), 26.22(c), and 26.80(c). The
final rule adds a new Sec. 26.709 [Applicability]. The NRC has made
these changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in
the organization and language of the rule, by grouping related
requirements together in the subpart.
Major changes to the former rule's requirements for recordkeeping
and reporting reflect the addition of requirements for specimen
validity testing to the final rule, the addition of requirements for
managing worker fatigue at nuclear power plants, and a relaxation of
the required frequency with which Part 26 programs must submit FFD
program performance reports to the NRC from bi-annually to annually.
Subpart O Inspections, Violations, and Penalties
As a result of reorganizing the proposed rule, the NRC has moved
the provisions contained in Subpart K of the proposed rule
[Inspections, Violations, and Penalties] to this subpart of the final
rule. The NRC added Subpart O to the final rule to combine into one
subpart former Sec. Sec. 26.70 [Inspections], 26.90 [Violations], and
26.91 [Criminal penalties]. The NRC has grouped these sections together
in one subpart because they each establish requirements related to the
NRC's oversight of the implementation of FFD programs. Section 26.821
[Inspections] retains the requirements in former Sec. 26.70. Section
26.823 [Violations] retains the requirements in former Sec. 26.90
[Violations]. Section 26.825 [Criminal penalties] retains the
requirements in former Sec. 26.91 [Criminal penalties].
D. Inclusion of Worker Fatigue Provisions in 10 CFR Part 26
The NRC has determined that the effectiveness of FFD programs in
ensuring against worker fatigue adversely affecting public health and
safety and the common defense and security should be strengthened by
establishing clear and enforceable requirements for the management of
worker fatigue at nuclear power plants. Subpart I, Managing Fatigue, of
the final rule includes these requirements and establishes an
integrated approach to fatigue management for nuclear power plant
workers, with fatigue prevention, detection, and mitigation as the
fundamental components. The requirements in Subpart I provide a
substantial increase in the protection of public health and safety and
common defense and security. In establishing the provisions of this
final rule, the NRC has taken into consideration the effects of
fatigue; the specific work practices of the nuclear power industry that
contribute to and mitigate fatigue; the inadequacy of the former
regulatory framework; the excessive hours formerly worked by many
nuclear power workers; and the practices of other industries and
countries for regulating work hours. In addition, the NRC held many
public meetings with the nuclear industry and the public to discuss
provisions for the final rule.
The NRC has determined that an integrated approach is necessary to
effectively manage worker fatigue because individuals experience
fatigue for many reasons, including long work hours, inadequate rest,
and stressful or strenuous working conditions. Shiftwork, home-life
demands, and sleep disorders can all contribute to inadequate sleep and
excessive fatigue. Individual differences in workers' tolerance of
these conditions also influence worker fitness for duty. As a
consequence, fatigue is a complex phenomenon that requires an
integrated approach to manage effectively. The requirements in Subpart
I were developed on the premise that fatigue management requires the
collaboration of individual workers and licensees.
Each of the requirements in Subpart I is discussed in detail in
Section VI. However, because Subpart I presents an integrated fatigue
management approach, this section discusses the principal findings that
led to the NRC's decision to include fatigue management provisions in
Part 26, as well as supporting information on the causes and problems
with worker fatigue in the nuclear power industry.
The Commission approved a rulemaking plan to include worker fatigue
provisions for nuclear power plants in 10 CFR Part 26 on January 10,
2002, (SRM-SECY-01-0113), as described in Section I. Since that time,
the NRC has continued to analyze the need for work-hour provisions in
the final rule. The considerations listed in the numbered paragraphs
that follow summarize the NRC's considerations concerning the
appropriate regulatory action to address the potential for worker
fatigue to affect public health and safety and the common defense and
security. These considerations include:
(1) The research literature demonstrating the substantive effects
of fatigue and decreased alertness on an individual's ability to safely
and competently perform his or her duties;
(2) The conditions that contribute to worker fatigue in the U.S.
nuclear power industry;
(3) With the exception of orders limiting the work hours of
security personnel, the NRC's former regulatory framework did not
include consistent or readily enforceable requirements to address
worker fatigue;
(4) Reviews of industry control of work hours have repeatedly
identified practices that were inconsistent with the NRC's Policy on
Worker Fatigue, including excessive use of extended
[[Page 16979]]
work weeks and the overuse of work-hour limit deviations;
(5) The former regulatory framework included requirements that were
inadequate and incomplete for effective fatigue management;
(6) Ensuring effective management of worker fatigue through
rulemaking substantially enhances the effectiveness of FFD programs,
but additional orders are not presently warranted to ensure adequate
protection of public health and safety or the common defense and
security; and
(7) Addressing the fatigue of workers in safety-critical positions
through regulation is consistent with practices in foreign countries
and other industries in the U.S.
Each of these considerations is discussed in greater detail below.
(1) Fatigue and decreased alertness can substantively degrade an
individual's ability to safely and competently perform his or her
duties.
The NRC previously noted in its ``Policy Statement on the Conduct
of Nuclear Power Plant Operations,'' dated January 24, 1989 (54 FR
3424), that ``nuclear power plant operators on each shift must have
knowledge of those aspects of plant status relevant to their
responsibilities to maintain their working environment free of
distractions, and using all their senses, be alert to prevent or
mitigate any operational problems.'' The degradation in an individual's
cognitive functioning resulting from inadequate rest includes, but is
not limited to, a reduced ability to sustain attention; maintain
situational awareness; make timely and conservative decisions;
communicate; and work effectively as a team member. These degradations
in performance, if exhibited by individuals performing risk-significant
functions, can adversely affect the safety and security of a nuclear
power plant.
The NRC evaluated the research available on the degradation of
worker abilities that are important to safe plant operation. The
research supports the fatigue management provisions in subpart I. Many
of the specific research citations are listed in detail in section VI.
The following is a discussion of the fundamental concerns associated
with worker fatigue, and some of the overall research that forms the
basis for the integrated fatigue management approach in Subpart I.
Many studies have shown that fatigue impairs human alertness and
performance (e.g., Alluisi and Morgan, 1982; Rosa, 1991; Scott, 1990;
Dinges, 1992; Dinges, 1995; Dawson and Reid, 1997; Bobko, et al., 1998;
Harrison and Horne, 2000; Williamson and Feyer, 2000). The lack of
adequate days off and extended workdays (overtime) can result in a
cumulative sleep debt (i.e., the difference between the amount of sleep
an individual needs and the amount of sleep that individual actually
obtains) and performance impairment (Webb and Agnew, 1974; Baker, et
al., 1994; Colquhoun, et al., 1996; Tucker, et al., 1999; Williamson
and Feyer, 2000; Department of Transportation (DOT), May 2, 2000, 65 FR
25546). Across a broad range of industries, studies concerning extended
work hours suggest that fatigue-induced personnel impairment can
increase human error probabilities by a factor of more than 2 to 3
times (Hanecke, et al., 1998; Colquhoun, et al., 1996; Akerstedt, 1995;
U.S. DOT, 49 CFR parts 350, et al., Final Rule, May 2, 2000; 65 FR
25544).
Studies of the nuclear power industry indicate that normal daily
variations in alertness associated with human circadian rhythms (i.e.,
physiological processes that vary on an approximate 24-hour cycle) may
be responsible for daily variations in the incidence of personnel
errors at nuclear power plants (Bobko, et al., 1998; Dorel, 1996;
Maloney, 1992). The findings of these studies are consistent with the
results of a survey of more than 100 nuclear power plant shift
supervisors--over 90 percent stated that they notice times of day, and
days in the schedule, during which control room operators are less
alert, less vigilant, or make more mistakes (Baker, et al., 1990 [EPRI
NP-6748]). These studies suggest that despite controls, such as
standardized work practices and independent verification, to ensure
correct and reliable human performance, factors that influence
alertness may increase the incidence of human errors in nuclear power
plants.
Fatigue has generalized effects on human performance capabilities,
and is associated with performance decrements at a base level, across a
variety of tasks (Dinges, 1995). Fatigue can impair both physical and
cognitive (i.e., mental) functioning.
Generally, cognitive task performance is affected more readily by
fatigue than physical or psychomotor tracking performance (Krueger,
1989; 1991). General cognitive fatigue decreases an individual's
ability to remain alert, process complex information, and correctly
grasp a complex set of circumstances. Fatigue has been shown to cause
memory problems, slowed responses, lapses and false responses
(Williams, et al., 1959; Morgan, et al., 1974; Dinges, 1992; Dinges,
1995). Many of the cognitive tasks performed by nuclear power plant
personnel that are important to the protection of public health and
safety and the common defense and security rely on their ability to
sustain attention, analyze problems, make rapid, accurate decisions,
and communicate and work as a team. The following effects of fatigue on
cognitive abilities are the primary focus of the fatigue management
requirements:
(a) Sustaining attention--Vigilance and attention to detail are
fundamental for plant safety, whether an individual is operating or
maintaining equipment important to plant safety, performing
surveillance procedures in the plant, monitoring system status in the
control room, or monitoring plant security systems or barriers. Tasks
requiring sustained attention (e.g., vigilance tasks) are among the
most susceptible to fatigue-induced degradation (Monk and Carrier,
2003). The sensitivity to fatigue of vigilance tasks is one of the
primary reasons that tests, such as the psychomotor vigilance task
(Dinges, et al., 1997; Doran, et al., 2001), are standard measurement
tools used in studies of the effects of sleep deprivation and fatigue.
Of particular note are research findings showing that, in operational
settings, individuals may experience periods of sleep up to a few
seconds (called microsleeps), during which they fail to respond to
external stimuli, and are completely unaware that these episodes have
occurred (Cabon, et al., 2003; Priest, et al., 2001; Summala, et al.,
1999).
(b) Decision-making--Conservative decision-making is central to
safe nuclear power plant operations. Fatigue is associated with more
risky strategies and decreases in the effort individuals exert in
decision-making (Schellekens, et al., 2000). Furthermore, Harrison and
Horne (2000) reviewed the impact of sleep deprivation on decision-
making and reported that, contrary to popular belief, sleep deprivation
impairs decision-making even if individuals try to compensate for lack
of sleep when responding to heightened stimulation. As noted by Cabon,
et al. (2003), studies have shown reductions in aircrew alertness, even
during the critical descent phase. These findings suggest that the
alerting stimuli of off-normal conditions (e.g., landing an airplane,
acknowledging control room annunciators) may not fully negate the
effects of fatigue on performance. The National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) reviewed the performance of flight crews involved in 37
major accidents and found that those crew members who had been awake
longer than 12 hours before their accidents made more errors overall,
and specifically more tactical decision
[[Page 16980]]
errors, than did crew members who had been awake for less time (NTSB,
1994).
(c) Problem solving--Perseveration is a term used to describe poor
problem solving performance, characterized by an individual or group of
individuals maintaining a faulty diagnosis or mitigation plan despite
contrary information. An example of perseveration from the nuclear
power industry was the initial response by plant operators to events at
Three Mile Island Unit 2 in 1979. The operators' initial response was
based on a faulty diagnosis of the plant condition (the operators
failed to recognize they were dealing with a loss of coolant accident),
which the operators maintained throughout the first 2 hours of the
event in the face of numerous conflicting indications. Many factors
contributed to human performance problems during the Three Mile Island
accident and the NRC is not suggesting that operator fatigue was a
contributing factor. However, fatigue is one factor that has been found
to contribute to this type of performance degradation (Harrison and
Horne, 2000), which may have serious consequences for public health and
safety. Sleep-deprived workers fail to appropriately allocate
attention, set task priorities, or sample for sources of potentially
faulty information (Hockey, 1970; Krueger, 1989). Mental fatigue also
contributes to decreased originality and flexibility in problem solving
and sub-optimal planning (Van der Linden, et al., 2003; Lorist, et al.,
2000; Horne, 1988).
(d) Communication and teamwork--Fatigue affects skills important to
written and oral communication and teamwork. Fatigue degrades speech
articulation, verbal fluency, grammatical reasoning (the ability to
process oral and written instructions), and memory (Harrison and Horne,
1997; 1998). Studies of individuals in simulated combat and command and
control conditions have shown that fatigue slows the encoding,
decoding, and transcription of information (Banderet, 1981; Angus and
Heslegrave, 1985). Fatigued individuals also tend to be less
communicative and have greater difficulty performing multiple tasks
concurrently, as demonstrated in simulated aircraft cockpit tasks
requiring monitoring and communications (Pascoe, et al., 1995; Harrison
and Horne, 2000). These effects have been found in the analysis of
incidents and accidents. In a study of major aircraft accidents, crews
that had been awake longer (an average of 13.8 hours for captains and
13.4 hours for first officers) made significantly more procedural and
tactical decision errors than crews that had been awake for a shorter
period (an average of 5.3 hours for captains and 5.2 hours for first
officers) (NTSB, 1994). Similar to control room personnel in nuclear
power plants, aircraft cockpit crews make extensive use of secondary
checks to verify that decisions and performance are correct, and to
mitigate the consequences of errors. Although the difference was not
statistically significant, analysis of the crew errors indicated that
crews that had been awake longer made nearly 50 percent more errors in
failing to challenge a faulty action or inaction by another crew
member. These studies highlight how fatigue cannot only degrade the
fitness of an individual, but also the overall performance of a crew.
Although fatigue has long been widely recognized as causing
degraded performance, recent research has helped characterize the
magnitude of these effects relative to a historical FFD concern:
impairment from alcohol intoxication. Part 26 prohibited the use of
alcohol on site and within several hours before a tour of duty, and
established alcohol testing requirements for personnel on duty. The NRC
established these requirements based on the recognition that alcohol
can have significant adverse effects on a worker's ability to safely
and competently perform his or her duties. Recent studies have shown
that fatigue can cause performance degradations that are comparable to
the levels observed from blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) in excess
of those that would result in a positive breath alcohol test under the
provisions of Part 26. In those studies, individuals who were awake for
17-19 hours had cognitive and psychomotor performance comparable to
individuals with a BAC of 0.05 percent (Dawson and Reid, 1997;
Williamson and Feyer, 2000). Part 26 establishes breath alcohol cutoff
level below 0.05 percent. The NRC considers the insight that fatigue
can impair a worker at levels comparable to those prohibited for
alcohol to be particularly significant.
(2) Conditions that contribute to worker fatigue are prevalent in
the U.S. nuclear power industry.
Fatigue may result from an individual remaining awake continuously
for an excessive period of time, or from the individual obtaining an
inadequate amount or quality of sleep, or both. Conditions that
contribute to worker fatigue include:
(a) Extended work shifts with five or more consecutive work days--
Although the effects of shift length on worker performance are
influenced by the nature of the task, various studies have shown that
task performance declines after 12 hours on a task (Rosa, 1991;
Folkard, 1997; Dawson and Reid, 1997). Other studies have shown that
the relative risk of having an accident increases dramatically after 9
consecutive hours on the job (Colquhoun, et al., 1996; Hanecke, et al.,
1998; U.S. DOT, 49 CFR parts 350, et al., Final Rule; 65 FR 25544; May
2, 2000). The effects of extended working hours on worker performance
can be exacerbated when many extended shifts are scheduled in
succession. The National Institute for Occupational safety and Health
published a report in 2004 (Caruso et al., 2004) that reviewed 52
recent reports examining the association between long work hours and
illness, injuries, health behaviors, and performance. NIOSH reported
that ``a pattern of deteriorating performance on psychophysiolgical
tests as well as injuries while working long hours was observed across
study findings, particularly when 12-hour shifts combined with more
than 40 hours of work a week.''
The use of 12-hour shifts has become increasingly common at U.S.
nuclear power plants. Schedules that include 5 or more 12-hour shifts
in succession during routine operations are sometimes popular with
workers because they allow a long sequence of days off. However,
scheduling more than 4 consecutive 12-hour shifts is not a recommended
means of managing fatigue (Baker, et al., 1990 [EPRI NP-6748]; NUREG/
CR-4248, ``Recommendations for NRC Policy on Shift Scheduling and
Overtime at Nuclear Power Plants''). As noted in the 2000 Sleep in
America Poll, ``waking up unrefreshed'' was more likely to be reported
by individuals working more than 60 hours per week (58 percent vs. 42
percent of those working 41-60 hours per week and 39 percent of those
working 31-40 hours) (National Sleep Foundation, 2000).
During the public meetings described in the preamble to the
proposed rule, industry stakeholders noted that the use of 6 or more
consecutive 12-hour shifts is now standard practice during plant
outages. In SECY-01-0113, the NRC staff reported that more than 80
percent of the authorizations written by licensees to exceed the
technical specification work-hour limits during outages were for
exceeding 72 hours (e.g., six 12-hour shifts) in a 7-day period. The
NRC's more recent review of deviations authorized at six plants for
refueling outages during 2003 and 2004 also indicated that deviations
from the limit of 72 hours in 7 days continue to account for more than
80 percent of the
[[Page 16981]]
deviations authorized. During the public meetings, industry
stakeholders also reported that, during outages, some licensees have
scheduled personnel for three or more weeks of consecutive 12-hour
shifts without intervening days off.
(b) Extensive Overtime--Many research studies report that excessive
working hours cause worker fatigue (Akerstedt, 1995b; Rosa, 1995;
Buxton, et al., 2002). The U.S. nuclear power industry makes extensive
use of overtime, creating a combined effect of long work hours with
reduced break periods. As noted in SECY-01-0113, at approximately one-
fourth of the sites, more than 20 percent of the personnel covered by
working hour limits work more than 600 hours of overtime annually. This
amount of overtime is more than two to three times the level permitted
for personnel at some foreign nuclear power plants and more than twice
the level recommended by an expert panel Commissioned by the NRC in
1985 (NUREG/CR-4248). In SECY-01-0113, the NRC also noted that some
licensees authorized hundreds to several thousand deviations from the
limits of 16 hours of work in any 24-hour period, 24 hours of work in
any 48-hour period, 72 hours of work in a 7-day period, and from the
minimum break requirement of 8 hours between work periods. The NRC also
noted the continued excessive use of such deviations in its survey of
six plants in 2004.
(c) Shiftwork--The nuclear power industry is a round-the-clock
operation requiring individuals to be awake and working at times when
they would normally be asleep. Although individuals can function in
these circumstances, human alertness and task performance are
cyclically affected by a daily biological clock, which runs on about a
24-hour (circadian) cycle, as it assists in timing numerous
physiological and psychological phenomena (such as core body
temperature, the daily release of various hormones, mood swings, and
wake-sleep cycle) (Liskowsky, et al., 1991). The circadian trough, or
lowest levels of function reflected in, for example, alertness,
performance, subjective mood, and body temperature, occurs around 3
a.m. to 5 a.m., with many human functions showing reduced levels
between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. Sleepiness is most severe between 3 and 5
a.m., with a less marked but significant expression again between 3 and
5 p.m.
There is substantial scientific literature on circadian variations
in alertness that clearly demonstrates the significant roles that
worker fatigue, sleep loss, and circadian rhythms play in contributing
to errors and accidents (Kryger, et al., 1994; Akerstedt, 1995a;
Dinges, 1995; Folkard, 1997; Comperatore and Krueger, 1990; Miller and
Mitler, 1997). These findings range from reduced response speed on a
variety of tasks, to missing warning signals, to minor hospital
incidents and accidents (Krueger, 1994). In addition, as previously
described in this section, circadian variations have also been noted in
studies of the incidence of personnel errors at nuclear power plants
(Bobko, et al., 1998; Dorel, 1996; Maloney, 1992) and noted in
observations by a large number of nuclear power plant shift supervisors
(Baker, et al., 1990 [EPRI NP-6748]).
In addition to causing individuals to perform work at periods of
depressed alertness, shiftwork also conflicts with circadian variations
in alertness by requiring individuals to sleep during naturally
occurring periods of increased cognitive arousal. Circadian rhythms,
and naturally occurring tendencies for sleep and wakefulness, do not
fully adapt to shiftwork schedules. In addition, daylight, noise and
the ``regular day'' schedules of other family members challenge the
ability of shiftworkers to obtain adequate rest. As a result,
shiftworkers generally obtain less sleep, and report a higher incidence
of sleepiness and sleep-related complaints. For example, in a survey of
1,154 U.S. adults, the National Sleep Foundation (NSF) found that
shiftworkers, on average, get less sleep (6 hours, 30 minutes) than
regular day workers (6 hours, 54 minutes). Almost half of the
shiftworkers they surveyed obtained less than 6.5 hours of sleep per
``night'' during the work-week, 30-90 minutes less than recommended by
most sleep experts. In comparison to regular day workers, shiftworkers
were more likely to be sleepy at work 2 or more days per week (34
percent vs. 23 percent) (National Sleep Foundation, 2000). Many studies
have demonstrated that decreased performance and increased errors and
accidents are associated with night work and are affected by varying
sleep schedules and durations of sleep periods (e.g., Balkin, et al.,
2000).
The challenge for shiftworkers to remain alert during the early
morning hours of a shift can be exacerbated by extended shift lengths,
overtime, and the inability of many shiftworkers to obtain adequate
sleep during the day (Hanecke, 1998). The powerful drive for sleep that
is associated with circadian factors, and the fact that shiftwork is a
daily influence on the alertness of all shiftworkers at nuclear power
plants, has been demonstrated by a number of recent events. For
example, there have been instances of operators falling asleep in the
control rooms at the Pilgrim nuclear power station (2004) and the test
and research reactor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(2003), as well as a security officer falling asleep at the Braidwood
nuclear power plant while driving a patrol vehicle (2004), despite
these individuals recognizing the potential safety and disciplinary
consequences.
(d) Early start times and extended commutes --Although many plant
personnel do not work rotating shifts, start times before 7 a.m. can
interfere with a worker's ability to obtain adequate rest if the
schedule is not aligned with his or her circadian cycle and naturally
occurring tendency for sleep and wakefulness. Such start times
typically cause workers to wake before 6 a.m., thereby reducing the
amount of sleep that can be obtained between midnight and 6 a.m., the
most effective time period for most people to sleep. In addition, long
commutes to remote work sites such as nuclear power plants, which are
frequently located in rural areas and distanced from major population
centers, contribute to the potential for fatigue associated with early
start times.
(e) Sleep disorders--Sleep disorders, such as sleep apnea,
insomnia, and restless leg syndrome (i.e., a condition that is
characterized by uncomfortable or unpleasant sensations in the legs,
causing an overwhelming urge to move them, often contributing to
difficulty in staying or falling asleep), are conditions that can
significantly reduce the quantity and quality of sleep that individuals
are able to obtain, affect an individual's ability to remain alert, and
ultimately degrade an individual's ability to safely and competently
perform his or her duties (Kryger, et al., 1994; Lewis and Wessely,
1992). These factors are not effectively addressed by limits on working
hours in the absence of other fatigue management practices. Although
the NRC does not have data for the incidence of sleep disorders that
are specific to U.S. nuclear power plant workers, in the general U.S.
population, these conditions are not uncommon. For example, the
prevalence of sleep apnea is estimated to be 4 percent for adult males
and 2 percent for adult females (Strollo and Rogers, 1996). The
incidence of sleep apnea may in fact be higher for shiftworkers at
power plants, as this condition is more common in middle-age adult
males than in the general population. A survey by the NSF of 1,154
adults living in households in the continental U.S.
[[Page 16982]]
found self-reports of sleep apnea were more common from shiftworkers
than regular day workers (15 percent vs. 9 percent) (National Sleep
Foundation, 2000). Similarly, the NSF found that shiftworkers reported
a higher incidence of insomnia (66 percent vs. 55 percent) than regular
day workers.
Although worker motivation can mitigate to a limited degree the
effects of fatigue, fatigue has a physiological basis, including
changes in glucose metabolism in the brain (Wu, et al., 1991; Thomas,
et al., 2000). These changes are beyond the individual's control. In
addition, several studies have suggested caution with regard to the
abilities of individuals to self-monitor their capacity to safely and
competently perform their duties when fatigued (Dinges, et al., 1997;
Belenky, et al., 2003; Akerstedt, 2003). These studies note that
individuals experience microsleeps without being aware of their lapses
in attention and underestimate their propensity for uncontrolled sleep
episodes. As a consequence, a worker's motivation to remain alert does
not provide reasonable assurance that an individual will be able to
safely and competently perform his or her duties.
Considering the above factors, fatigue can have a significant
adverse effect on worker abilities. Further, the likelihood of a
nuclear power plant worker being impaired from fatigue is not trivial,
and potentially greater than the likelihood of impairment from drugs
and alcohol, which the NRC requires licensees to address through their
FFD programs. Therefore, the NRC believes that regulatory action is
warranted to ensure that fatigue is adequately addressed through
licensee FFD programs. Further, the NRC asserts that rulemaking is the
appropriate regulatory action for the following reasons:
(3) With the exception of orders limiting the work hours of
security personnel, the NRC's former regulatory framework did not
include consistent or readily enforceable requirements to address
worker fatigue.
The principal components of the former regulatory framework for
matters pertaining to working hours and fatigue for non-security
personnel were (a) NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue, as issued on June
15, 1982, in GL 82-12, and (b) plant technical specifications related
to this policy statement, and (c) certain limited requirements of 10
CFR Part 26.
As part of the assessment of PRM-26-2, in which Barry Quigley
petitioned for rulemaking to establish enforceable requirements
addressing fatigue of workers at nuclear power plants, the NRC reviewed
and assessed the implementation and enforceability of the NRC's former
regulatory framework applicable to worker fatigue, including licensee
technical specifications for the administrative control of work hours.
This review was documented in detail in Attachment 1 to SECY-01-0113.
The NRC continued this evaluation during development of this final
rule, and the principal findings include:
(a) NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue--NRC guidance documents do not
prescribe requirements. Guidance documents establish policy or provide
advice on meeting a regulatory requirement. As a result, a policy is
enforceable only to the extent that the guidelines have been
incorporated into a license condition or technical specifications. For
the three nuclear power plant sites that have not incorporated the
guidelines from the NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue into a license
condition or technical specification, the guidelines are unenforceable.
These plant sites have implemented the concept using other
administrative controls that the NRC has determined to be adequate.
However, had the NRC determined that the controls were inadequate, it
would have had no basis for taking enforcement action.
(b) Technical Specifications--For those licensees who have
incorporated the NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue into a license
condition or technical specifications, consistent enforcement has been
complicated by the following factors:
--The language in plant technical specifications is largely advisory
(e.g., an individual should not be permitted to work more than 16 hours
straight) and key terms have not been defined. This deficiency has
resulted in inconsistent interpretation and implementation of technical
specifications by licensees, as well as difficulty for the NRC in
enforcing the requirements. For example, many technical specifications
use the terms, ``routine heavy use of overtime,'' ``unforeseen
problems,'' and ``temporary basis.'' The NRC has not defined any of
these terms and has not consistently pursued enforcement on the basis
of the amount or frequency of overtime authorized.
--The technical specifications have inconsistent levels of detail from
one nuclear power plant licensee to another. Only three-quarters of the
licensees' technical specifications include the quantitative work-hour
limit guidelines of the NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue.
--The technical specifications contain varying scopes of requirements.
Some plant technical specifications require periodic reviews of
overtime approvals to ensure that excessive hours have not been
assigned, while other technical specifications contain no equivalent
requirements. Although the observed variability in the controls does
not by itself present a safety concern, such variability is
inconsistent with establishing a uniform level of assurance that
personnel are not in a fatigued condition that could significantly
reduce their mental alertness and decision-making capabilities.
--Licensees have inconsistently interpreted the scope of personnel who
must be subject to the technical specification work-hour limits. The
NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue applies to personnel who are performing
safety-related functions. The NRC's review of work-hour data gathered
by NEI regarding the work hours of personnel subject to the technical
specifications (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2000) identified variation in
the numbers and types of personnel covered by these controls. A limited
number of sites may not have been applying work-hour controls to all
personnel performing safety-related functions. At least two nuclear
plant sites do not apply the work hour controls to any maintenance
personnel even though GL 83-14, ``Definition of `Key Maintenance
Personnel' (Clarification of GL 82-12),'' issued March 7, 1983, defined
key maintenance personnel to include individuals who work on safety-
related equipment.
--The basic measure used to determine whether an individual's work
hours are within or above the technical specification limits has not
been implemented consistently from one nuclear power plant to another.
Work hours included within the limits at some nuclear power plants have
not been included at others, effectively creating substantively
different work-hour limits among plants.
(c) 10 CFR Part 26, ``Fitness for Duty Programs''--The general
performance objectives of former Sec. 26.10 required that licensees
provide ``reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant personnel * * *
are not * * * mentally or physically impaired from any cause, which in
any way adversely affects their ability to perform their duties.''
Although former 10 CFR Part 26 contained specific requirements
pertaining to alcohol and drug usage, it did not include prescriptive
[[Page 16983]]
requirements regarding fatigue. Rather, former Sec. 26.20 used
general, non-mandatory language to state that the FFD policy ``should''
address other factors that can affect a worker's ability to safely and
competently perform his or her duties, ``such as mental stress,
fatigue, and illness.'' As a result, it has been difficult for the NRC
to justify a violation of the regulation based on a licensee's failure
to limit overtime hours. In addition, without a numerical limit on
overtime hours, or a provision limiting overtime, a range of overtime
practices could be viewed as ``reasonable,'' and therefore in
compliance with the regulation.
In summary, the broad and non-prescriptive provisions of Part 26,
and the technical specifications and license conditions pertaining to
fatigue, in the absence of clearly defined terms or measures of
fatigue, have made it difficult for the NRC to enforce worker fatigue
requirements and work-hours limits in an effective, efficient, and
uniform manner that ensures that all licensees provide reasonable
assurance that workers are able to safely and competently perform their
duties. The NRC believes that a consistent fatigue management program
and its uniform implementation across the industry is essential, and
the most effective regulatory mechanism is to incorporate worker
fatigue requirements into 10 CFR Part 26.
(4) Reviews of industry control of work hours have repeatedly
identified practices that were inconsistent with the NRC's Policy on
Worker Fatigue, including excessive use of work hours and work hour
limit deviations.
The policy states, in part, ``Enough plant operating personnel
should be employed to maintain adequate shift coverage without routine
heavy use of overtime.'' Surveys and expert panels have suggested that
tolerance for overtime is generally limited to 300-400 hours of
overtime per year (ADAMS Accession No. ML05270310; NUREG/CR-4248).
Baker, et al. (1994) reviewed the hours worked by nuclear power plant
operations, technical, and maintenance personnel during 1986, four
years after the NRC issued its policy. Based on a sample of 63 percent
of U.S. nuclear power plants operating at that time, Baker and
colleagues found that operations personnel averaged more than 500 hours
of overtime annually at 20 percent of the plants, and more than 700
hours of overtime at 9 percent of the plants. Technical personnel
averaged more than 500 hours of overtime annually at 30 percent of the
plants, and more than 700 hours of overtime at 18 percent of the
plants. Maintenance personnel averaged more than 500 hours of overtime
annually at 80 percent of the plants and more than 700 hours of
overtime at 14 percent of the plants.
The NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue included provisions for
licensees to authorize deviations from the NRC's work and rest
guidelines for individual workers in ``very unusual circumstances.'' On
June 10, 1991, following several NRC inspections noting concerns
related to licensee work hour control, the NRC issued Information
Notice (IN) 91-36, Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours, to alert
licensees of potential problems resulting from inadequate controls to
prevent excessive working hours. The conditions cited in the notice
included an event attributed to fatigue, excessive use of deviations
and overtime, and overtime deviations authorized after the fact.
Subsequent NRC reviews completed in 1999 and 2001 identified continued
problems with industry control of work hours. In 1999, the NRC reviewed
licensee event reports and NRC inspection reports from January 1994
through April 1999. The NRC found that only a few events of limited
risk significance had been attributed to fatigue. However, the staff
found several instances each year in which licensee use of overtime
appeared to be inconsistent with the general objectives or specific
guidelines of the NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue.
NEI conducted a survey in the summer of 2000 concerning industry
control of work hours for personnel subject to the technical
specifications (letter dated August 29, 2000, from J. W. Davis, NEI, to
G. M. Tracy, NRC, ADAMS Accession No. ML003746495). Forty-seven sites
responded to the survey, providing data from 1997-1999. The NRC staff's
review of the data is documented in Attachment 1 to SECY-01-0113. The
NRC evaluated the results of the survey concerning overtime and found
that 8 of 36 sites providing data had more than 20 percent of the
personnel covered by the policy working in excess of 600 hours of
overtime per year. Considering all plants that provided data, the
percentage of personnel working in excess of 600 hours of overtime per
year increased from 7 percent in 1997 to 11 percent in 1999. The
percentage of licensed operators working in excess of 600 hours of
overtime per year increased from 13 percent in 1997 to more than 16
percent in 1999. The NRC considers these percentages to represent
excessive use of overtime in the nuclear industry.
The NRC also reviewed the data collected by NEI concerning
deviations, which showed that approximately one-third of the
respondents were authorizing more than a thousand, to as many as 7,500,
deviations in a year to exceed the policy guidelines. The frequency of
deviations did not appear to be consistent with either the specific
guidelines or the general objective of the policy. As previously
described in this section, the policy permits deviations from the
guidelines in ``very unusual circumstances.''
Subsequent to the Commission's decision to initiate rulemaking for
worker fatigue, the NRC staff also obtained data from six sites in
2004. Those data indicated that between 95 and 603 deviations, with an
average of 311 deviations, were issued for individuals. The data were
provided by the six sites for each plant's most recent refueling outage
and one month of power operation, and therefore do not reflect the
total number of deviations issued for individuals during all of 2004,
except for one of the six sites that provided its deviation data (101
deviations) for all of 2004. Data on the deviations from 2004 in this
sample are reported in detail in Appendix 3 of the Regulatory Analysis.
The NRC believes that licensee use of deviations and overtime at some
sites has been excessive, and has been inconsistent with the intent of
the NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue.
In addition to excessive work hours and work-hour guidelines
deviations, the NRC has recently identified other concerns related to
licensee policies and practices applicable to worker fatigue. On May
10, 2002, the NRC issued Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2002-007,
``Clarification of NRC Requirements Applicable to Worker Fatigue and
Self-Declaration of Fitness-for-Duty.'' The NRC issued the RIS
following several allegations made to the NRC regarding the
appropriateness of licensee actions or policies related to individuals
declaring they are not fit due to fatigue. These concerns indicate a
need to ensure that individuals and licensees clearly understand their
responsibilities with respect to self-declarations of worker fatigue.
The final rule establishes requirements to address this need.
(5) The former regulatory framework included requirements that were
inadequate and incomplete for effective fatigue management.
(a) The NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue did not establish clear
expectations for the control of work hours. As previously noted in this
section, the NRC did not define key terms of the policy, and, as a
[[Page 16984]]
consequence, implementation has been varied across the industry.
(b) Certain policy guidelines and technical specifications were
inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that individuals remain
capable of safely and competently performing their duties. For example,
the requirement for an 8-hour break between work periods has been
revised to a 10-hour break. The basis for this revision to increase the
length of this break period is described in detail in Section VI with
respect to Sec. 26.205(d)(2)(i).
In addition, although the policy established an objective of a
nominal 40-hour work week, the specific work hour guidelines of the
policy and most technical specifications for the administrative control
of work hours have principally focused on acute fatigue. These
guidelines did not adequately address the longer term control of work
hours and the cumulative fatigue that can result from prolonged periods
of extended work hours. Acute fatigue results from restricted sleep,
sustained wakefulness, or continuous task demands over the past 24
hours or more. Cumulative fatigue results from inadequate rest over
consecutive sleep-wake periods when the worker obtains less sleep than
he or she requires. An individual incurs a sleep debt for each day
during which the worker obtains insufficient sleep. If the individual
continues to obtain insufficient sleep, this debt accumulates over
successive days, resulting in increasing fatigue and impairment
(Belenky, et al., 2003).
The inadequacy of the former regulatory framework for addressing
cumulative fatigue became particularly apparent in the months following
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The NRC received numerous
allegations from nuclear security officers that certain licensees
required them to work excessive amounts of overtime over long periods
due to the post-September 11, 2001, threat environment. These
individuals questioned their readiness and ability to perform their
required job duties due to the adverse effects of cumulative fatigue.
The NRC reviewed the actual hours worked by security personnel and
determined that, in the majority of cases, individual work hours did
not exceed the guidelines specified in the NRC's Policy on Worker
Fatigue, but the review confirmed that individuals had been working up
to 60 hours per week for extended periods. The concerns expressed by
individuals regarding their FFD, in light of work schedules that did
not exceed the specific guidelines of the policy, as well as relevant
technical research supporting the basis for cumulative fatigue, led the
NRC to conclude that the work hour guidelines of the policy were
inadequate for addressing cumulative fatigue. The NRC obtained
additional worker feedback supporting this conclusion through a review
of worker fatigue concerns and work hours during a long-term outage at
the Davis Besse nuclear plant (NRC Inspection Report 05000346/2004003,
dated March 31, 2004, ADAMS Accession No. ML040910335).
The comprehensive fatigue management approach in Subpart I,
Managing Fatigue, establishes controls to address cumulative fatigue.
Limits to mitigate cumulative fatigue for nuclear power plant security
personnel were implemented by Order EA-03-038. The final rule codifies,
with changes, these requirements. Changes to those limits that have
been imposed by this rule are discussed in detail in Section VI, which
also includes a detailed discussion of the limits and other controls to
mitigate cumulative fatigue for other personnel who perform safety-
related duties at nuclear power plants.
(c) The former regulatory framework did not effectively ensure that
fatigue from causes other than work hours was addressed. Work hour
controls are necessary, but not sufficient, to effectively manage
worker fatigue. As a consequence, training and fatigue assessments are
essential. Worker fatigue, and its effects on worker alertness and
performance, can result from many causes in addition to work hours
(e.g., stress, sleep disorders, daily living obligations) (Rosa, 1995;
Presser, 2000). In addition, there are substantial individual
differences in the abilities of individuals to work for extended
periods without performance degradation from fatigue (Gander, 1998; Van
Dongen, et al., 2004a; Van Dongen, et al., 2004b; Jansen, et al.,
2003). Subpart I, Managing Fatigue, requires a comprehensive fatigue
management program. One example is the strengthening of FFD training
requirements concerning worker fatigue. The training requirements will
improve the effectiveness of behavioral observation and the assessment
of worker fatigue, self-declaration as a means for early detection of
fatigue, worker self-management of fatigue, the ability of workers to
obtain adequate rest on a shiftwork schedule, and licensee use of
effective fatigue counter-measures.
(6) Ensuring effective management of worker fatigue through
rulemaking will substantially enhance the effectiveness of FFD
programs, but additional orders are not presently warranted to ensure
adequate protection of public health and safety or the common defense
and security.
Adequate protection of public health and safety and the common
defense and security were ensured under the former regulatory
framework, including Order EA-03-038 (for security personnel), the
NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue, and licensee technical specifications.
Licensee FFD programs included behavioral observation programs to
identify individuals whose behavior indicates they may not be fit to
safely and competently perform their duties, and ensure that those
individuals are removed from duty until any question regarding their
fitness has been resolved. The former work-hour controls, in
conjunction with licensee behavioral observation programs, automatic
reactor protection systems and other administrative controls on worker
activities (e.g., post-maintenance testing, peer checks, independent
verifications) ensured adequate protection of public health and safety
and the common defense and security. However, there were substantial
limitations to the former regulatory framework, as detailed in this
section. Therefore, although the previous regulatory framework provided
adequate protection, including work-hour controls in 10 CFR Part 26
provides a substantial increase in public health and safety and the
common defense and security. The NRC has incorporated worker fatigue
provisions in Part 26 in light of the substantial increase in safety
and security that is expected to result.
(7) Addressing fatigue of workers in safety-critical positions
through regulation is consistent with practices in foreign countries
and other industries in the U.S.
The NRC reviewed the limits on work hours for nuclear plant workers
in eight other countries, as well as six other industries in the United
States and Canada. These are summarized in Attachment 1 of SECY-01-
0113. Although many factors influence specific regulatory limits, and
requirements for other industries should be considered in context, the
NRC found that the NRC's former guidelines are the least restrictive
among those reviewed.
The work hours of nuclear power plant personnel in other countries
are largely based on labor laws or union agreements that apply to
multiple industries. With the exception of Spain, which has limits
consistent with the NRC's Policy on Worker Fatigue, each of the other
eight countries has more stringent requirements. The more stringent
requirements have largely
[[Page 16985]]
preempted the need in those countries for regulation of work hours
based on nuclear safety concerns.
The Department of Transportation (DOT) has established regulatory
limits on the work hours of pilots, air traffic controllers, and
maintenance personnel in the commercial aviation industry (14 CFR parts
121 and 135); in the maritime industry (46 U.S.C. 8104; 46 CFR parts
15.705, 15.710 and 15.111); in the rail industry (49 U.S.C. 211; 49 CFR
Part 228); and for drivers of heavy trucks in the commercial trucking
industry (49 CFR Part 395). The DOT recognized that fatigue can
substantively degrade the ability of individuals to perform these
duties and, therefore, promulgated regulatory requirements for each of
these modes of transportation in keeping with the department's mission
to protect public safety. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) identified equipment
operator fatigue as a significant issue affecting all transportation
modes (Beal and Rosekind, 1995). As a result, DOT classified operator
fatigue management as a DOT ``Flagship Initiative'' and several
proactive fatigue management activities ensued across the
transportation industries (e.g. U.S. DOT, 1995; Rogers, 1996, 1997;
Hartley, 1998; Carroll, 1999).
In 1999, the NTSB evaluated DOT's decade of efforts on operator
fatigue (NTSB, 1999). Not satisfied that enough was being done, NTSB
subsequently offered DOT three recommendations: (1) expedite a
coordinated research program on the effects of fatigue, sleepiness,
sleep disorders, and circadian factors on transportation safety; (2)
develop and disseminate educational materials for transportation
industry personnel and management regarding shift work, work rest
schedules, and proper regimens of health, diet, and rest; and (3)
review and upgrade regulations governing hours of service for all
transportation modes to assure they are consistent and incorporate the
results of the latest research on fatigue and sleep issues (NTSB,
1999).
On April 28, 2003, the DOT issued revised hours-of-service
regulations to require motor carriers to provide drivers with better
opportunities to obtain sleep. Among other provisions, the regulations
(1) increase the required off-duty time from 8 to 10 consecutive hours;
(2) limit driving time to 11 cumulative hours following 10 consecutive
hours off duty; (3) prohibit work after the end of the fourteenth hour
after the driver began work; and (4) require long break recovery
periods to prevent cumulative fatigue (68 FR 22456-22517; April 28,
2003, as amended by 70 FR 50071; August 25, 2005).
Nuclear power plant licensees in the U.S. have sometimes asserted
that the characteristics of the work tasks in nuclear power plants
differ from other occupations that have work hour controls (e.g.
transportation equipment operators); therefore information from other
occupations may not be applicable. In addition, licensees have
suggested that the level of automation in nuclear power plants provides
an important barrier to human errors resulting from fatigue, and that
the amount of control room crew interaction and oversight of operators'
actions assures that fatigue-induced errors will be detected and
corrected before they have an opportunity to impact plant operations.
The NRC concurs that requirements for other industries should be
considered in context. Nevertheless, the fact that other Federal
agencies with a safety mission have established regulations to address
fatigue is relevant for several reasons.
First, the human need for sleep and the deleterious effects of
sleep deprivation have a physiological basis (e.g., changes in brain
glucose metabolism) that is independent of the nature of the work being
performed (Wu, et al., 1991). Second, circadian variations in alertness
and performance, and the underlying changes in physiological processes,
have been observed in individuals performing a wide range of tasks
across many industries (Kecklund, et al., 1997). For all individuals,
time since awakening, the time of day, and the amount of prior sleep
that an individual obtains relative to his or her sleep needs are
primary determinants of fatigue and the need for sleep.
The NRC acknowledges that task characteristics and time on task may
exacerbate the effects of fatigue on the ability of individuals to
remain alert. For example, a concern for task-specific effects is
reflected in the DOT hours-of-service regulations for commercial truck
drivers, which establish a daily limit on driving time of 11 hours per
day. This limit is in addition to the requirements prohibiting driving
after 14 hours on duty and mandating minimum 10-hour break periods,
which reflect the human physiological need for rest that is necessary
to maintain performance (68 FR 22456-22517; April 28, 2003).
By comparison to driving a truck, the characteristics of some jobs
in nuclear power plants (e.g., reactor operator) permit greater freedom
of movement and social interaction, which may serve to temporarily
mitigate the effects of fatigue on alertness. However, there is no
evidence to indicate that worker motivation or the stimulating effects
of the job or environment alter the underlying physiological processes.
Although crew interactions and other job characteristics may serve to
bolster worker alertness temporarily, environmental stimulation only
masks individuals' physiological need for sleep. Removing the
stimulation (e.g., transitioning from the activity of shift turnover to
monitoring steady state plant operations during a night shift) will
increase the potential for lapses in attention and uncontrolled sleep
episodes among individuals who may be partially sleep deprived or
otherwise fatigued.
Another consideration regarding the relevance of other regulations
limiting work hours is that adverse fatigue effects are observed across
a broad range of cognitive functions in addition to alertness. Whereas
crew interactions may help sustain alertness, sleep deprivation and
sustained periods of wakefulness continue to degrade other cognitive
functions (e.g., memory and decision making) and elements of
performance that are important to safe nuclear plant operations, such
as communications and following written and oral instructions. For
example, as discussed earlier in this section, studies of crew
performance in critical phases of commercial aircraft flight (e.g.,
take-off and landings) and in simulated battle command station
operations have shown fatigue-related degradations in performance
despite the stimulation of the interactions, the intense level of
activity, and the implications of degraded performance for the loss of
human life. Regulations limiting work hours in other industries that
use operating crews (e.g., aviation) and allow greater freedom of
movement than trucking (e.g. maritime) are consistent with this
understanding of the broad effects of fatigue on cognitive performance.
There is no reason to believe that nuclear power plant workers'
physiological processes and the adverse effects of fatigue on their
abilities to perform their tasks would differ. In addition, the notion
that human performance practices in the nuclear industry prevent
fatigue-related performance decrements from resulting in human errors
is not supported by studies that have shown circadian variations in
performance at nuclear power plants (Bobko, et al., 1998; Dorel, 1996;
Maloney, 1992).
The NRC acknowledges that the nuclear power industry is perhaps
unique, relative to many other
[[Page 16986]]
industries, in its use of automated safety systems to protect against
the consequences of equipment failure and human error. Nevertheless,
reliable human performance remains an essential element in the
protection of public health and safety and the common defense and
security. NRC requirements, such as the minimum onsite staffing
requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(m) and minimum security staffing
requirements in site security plans, are predicated on the expectation
that all personnel in these positions are fit for duty and are able to
safely and competently perform their duties. As a consequence, the NRC
does not consider the use of automated safety systems to be an
appropriate basis for permitting conditions that could allow fatigue to
degrade the important line of defense of reliable human performance.
Further, despite automated systems, the contribution of human error to
risk in operating events continues to be notable (NUREG/CR-6753,
``Review of Findings for Human Error Contribution to Risk in Operating
Events'').
Because the NRC concurs that task characteristics are an
appropriate consideration, the final rule differs from other Federal
agencies' requirements with respect to specific work hour requirements
and requires licensees to consider task characteristics when
authorizing any waiver from the work hour controls. Nevertheless, the
NRC believes that it remains relevant that other Federal agencies with
public safety missions have chosen to address worker fatigue through
regulation.
In summary, the NRC believes that the requirements in Subpart I
will provide a substantial increase in the protection of public health
and safety and common defense and security. In determining the
provisions of this final rule, the NRC has taken into consideration the
effects of fatigue on human performance, the specific work practices of
the nuclear power industry that both mitigate and contribute to
fatigue, the inadequacy of the former regulatory framework, the
excessive hours formerly worked by many nuclear power plant personnel,
and the relevant research and practices of other industries and
countries for regulating work hour limits. In addition, many public
meetings were held with the nuclear industry and the public to discuss
draft provisions for the final rule. The specific basis for each
provision of the fatigue management portions of the final rule are
discussed in Section VI.
The requirements for managing fatigue will provide a substantial
increase in the protection of public health and safety and common
defense and security by:
(1) Establishing specific, integrated, comprehensive, and
enforceable requirements for the effective prevention, detection, and
mitigation of worker fatigue;
(2) Ensuring that personnel who perform functions that are
significant to the protection of public health and safety or the common
defense and security are subject to appropriate work hour controls,
including: individuals performing risk significant operations or
maintenance duties; health physics, chemistry, and fire brigade duties
important to emergency response; and individuals performing security
duties important to maintaining the security of the plant;
(3) Establishing work hour controls that provide increased
assurance that workers will have adequate opportunity for rest and that
deviations from the work hour limits will only be authorized as
necessary for plant safety or security and following appropriate
assessment of the worker's ability to safely and competently perform
his or her duties;
(4) Ensuring that work hour deviations are only permitted when
necessary for plant safety or security, and following assessment of the
worker's ability to safely and competently perform his or her duties;
(5) Establishing controls to prevent cumulative fatigue that can
result from consecutive weeks of extended work hours;
(6) Ensuring workers are provided with sufficient break periods to
provide for adequate opportunity for sleep to mitigate acute and
cumulative fatigue;
(7) Ensuring that, in addition to work hours, other factors that
can affect worker fatigue and the ability of workers to remain alert
are adequately addressed through licensee FFD programs;
(8) Encouraging effective fatigue management by permitting
licensees to use alternate measures for prevention and mitigation of
fatigue; and
(9) Strengthening FFD training requirements concerning worker
fatigue. This will improve behavioral observation and assessment of
worker fatigue; self-declaration as a means for early detection of
fatigue; worker self-management of fatigue; the ability of workers to
obtain adequate rest on a shiftwork schedule; and licensee use of
effective fatigue counter-measures.
E. Subsequent Rulemakings
On August 28, 2007 (72 FR 49352), the Commission issued a final
rule amending its regulations by revising the provisions, particularly
10 CFR Part 52, applicable to the licensing and approval processes for
future nuclear power plants. The Part 52 final rule also clarified
portions of the former Part 26 to explicitly extend the applicability
of sections of the former Part 26 to a combined license holder after
the date that the NRC makes the finding under Sec. 52.103(g), a
combined license holder before the date that the NRC makes the finding
under Sec. 52.103(g), a manufacturing license holder under Subpart F
of 10 CFR Part 52, and a person authorized to conduct the construction
activities under Sec. 50.10(e)(3). The Part 52 final rule accomplished
this by:
(1) Revising the former Sec. 26.2(a) to refer to combined license
holders after the date that the NRC makes the finding under Sec.
52.103(g);
(2) Revising the former Sec. 26.2(c) to refer to a holder of a
combined license before the date that the NRC makes the finding under
Sec. 52.103(g), a holder of a manufacturing license under Subpart F of
Part 52, and a person authorized to conduct the activities under Sec.
50.10(e)(3);
(3) Revising the former Sec. 26.10(a) to refer to the personnel of
a holder of a manufacturing license and those authorized to conduct the
activities under Sec. 50.10(e)(3); and
(4) Revising the former Appendix A to Part 26, paragraph 1.1(1) to
include a reference to a holder of a combined license after the date
that the NRC makes the finding under Sec. 52.103(g).
The Part 52 final rule changes to Part 26 went into effect on
September 27, 2007. Each of the Part 26 provisions revised by the Part
52 final rule has been modified by this final rule, as discussed in
section VI of this document.
On October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57416), the Commission issued a final
rule amending its regulations applicable to limited work authorizations
(LWAs), which allow certain construction activities on production and
utilization facilities to commence before a construction permit or
combined license is issued. The LWA final rule modified the scope of
activities that are considered construction for which a construction
permit, combined license or LWA is necessary, specified the scope of
construction activities that may be performed under a LWA, and changed
the review and approval process for LWA requests. By making these
changes in the LWA final rule, the Commission also revised the scope of
Part 26 by clarifying which entities could be subject to Part 26. The
extent to which the LWA final rule impacted
[[Page 16987]]
Part 26 is discussed in section VI in this document.
V. Summary of Public Comments Submitted on Proposed Rule
Description of Public Comments and Public Meetings
The NRC received 81 written public comments on the proposed Part 26
published on August 26, 2005. The NRC also considered six comments
submitted on a previous working draft of the proposed rule that NRC
posted on its Web site on May 19, 2005, but which were received too
late to consider at that time. These 87 written comments contained more
than 350 pages of material. The stakeholders who submitted these 87
comments are as follows: 25 (29 percent) from nuclear energy industry
representatives, including several substantive comments from NEI; five
(6 percent) from other organizations; seven (8 percent) from unions; 21
(24 percent) from individuals who work in the nuclear energy industry
(i.e. operators, maintenance workers); 15 (17 percent) from other
individuals; and 14 (16 percent) from anonymous commenters.
The NRC considered comments contained in the transcript of a public
meeting held on September 21, 2005, in which 28 individuals, including
NRC staff, spoke. Four written comments were submitted anonymously at
this meeting. The NRC also considered comments from several other
public meetings: November 7 and 9, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML052990048) to provide clarification on the proposed rule; and
December 15, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML053400002) regarding NEI's
proposed alternative approach to the work-hour portions of the proposed
rule.
The written comments received on the proposed rule addressed many
issues that were of stakeholder concern. The NRC analyzed all of these
comments as part of the process for developing this final rule. In
particular, commenters raised several important concerns relating to
fatigue management, the application of FFD requirements to entities
involved in new plant construction and manufacturing activities, and
validity testing of urine specimens. These concerns are discussed in
some detail below. As discussed in Section VI, commenters also raised
numerous other smaller issues that led the NRC to modify many final
rule provisions. Finally, many comments resulted in minor changes to
the proposed rule to improve clarity in the rule's organization and
language, consistent with Goal 6 of this rulemaking. Virtually all of
the comments supported the objectives of the proposed rule.
Public Comment on Subpart I
The NRC has reorganized the overall structure of the proposed rule
and renumbered several subparts. This necessitated renumbering the
affected sections of Subpart I [Managing Fatigue].
Subpart I contains requirements for the management of worker
fatigue at nuclear power plants. Most comments recommended
modifications to Subpart I to address specific concerns with the
proposed rule language or certain provisions of the rule. However, the
vast majority of the stakeholders commenting on Subpart I expressed
their general support for the NRC's objective of establishing a set of
clear and enforceable requirements to address the management of worker
fatigue at nuclear power plants. Commenters supported the fatigue
provisions for various reasons. In particular, commenters expected that
the rule would increase the clarity of work hour requirements, reduce
forced overtime, provide reasonable assurance that the risk of fatigue-
related events is managed, increase staffing levels, and prevent worker
injuries. Those who opposed the rule asserted that it would place an
unnecessary burden on licensees, reduce worker income, and make it more
difficult for licensees to attract supplemental workers during outages.
The NRC received several substantive comments that addressed
specific provisions in proposed Sec. 26.199 [Work hour controls]. This
section would have established requirements for the control of work
hours for a limited scope of personnel at a nuclear power plant. In
general, the individuals who would have been subject to these
requirements perform functions that most directly affect the protection
of public health and safety and common defense and security. The
provisions that were the subject of these comments were proposed Sec.
26.199(d)(2)(ii), which would have required a minimum 24-hour break in
any 7-day period; proposed Sec. 26.199(d)(2)(iii), which would have
required a minimum 48-hour break in any 14-day period; and proposed
Sec. 26.199(f) [Collective work hour limits], which would have
required licensees to control the average work hours of specified duty
groups (e.g., operations, security). The NRC also received substantive
comments on the reporting requirements in Subpart I of the proposed
rule. Specifically, the comments concerned the proposed Sec. 26.197(e)
[Reporting] which would have required licensees to provide information
concerning the implementation of certain work hour requirements as part
of an annual FFD program report.
Proposed Requirements for a Minimum 24-Hour Break in Any 7-Day Period
Section 26.199(d)(2)(ii) of the proposed rule would have required a
minimum 24-hour break in any 7-day period. Commenters noted that
licensees who currently use 8-hour schedules often include periods of 7
consecutive work days in their schedules. These schedules limit the
frequency of shift rotations and enable licensees to conduct training
on a Monday-through-Friday schedule. The commenters also asserted that
the requirement for a minimum 24-hour break in any 7-day period would
substantially reduce licensee flexibility in scheduling 8-hour shifts
and would cause them to switch to 12-hour shifts. The NRC agrees that
the proposed requirement for a minimum 24-hour break in any 7-day
period would have adversely affected licensee scheduling of 8-hour
shifts as described in the comments and has revised the maximum number
of work days that the rule permits between breaks.
Section 26.205(d)(2)(ii) of the final rule replaces proposed Sec.
26.199(d)(2)(ii) and requires a minimum 34-hour break in any 9-day
period. In revising the requirement, the NRC considered that, although
the final rule permits more consecutive work shifts for 8-hour and 10-
hour shift schedules, the additional flexibility allows licensees to
more readily optimize their 8-hour shift schedules to minimize the
transitions between day, evening, and night shifts that can lead to
worker fatigue. Although this relaxation also allows more consecutive
shifts for individuals on 10-hour shifts, these individuals typically
do not work a rotating schedule and therefore do not experience the
disruption of their circadian cycle that exacerbates the cumulative
fatigue effects of consecutive work shifts. The rule also establishes
minimum day of requirements in Sec. 26.205(d)(3) that effectively
limit within each shift cycle the number of times individuals can work
the 8 consecutive work days allowed by Sec. 26.205(d)(2)(ii). The
scheduling of 12-hour shifts is unaffected by this requirement because
Sec. 26.205(d)(1)(iii) effectively limits the scheduling of 12-hour
shifts to not more than 6 consecutive days. The final rule also
provides the licensee with sufficient flexibility to accommodate other
[[Page 16988]]
practical considerations, such as scheduling training on a Monday-
through-Friday basis, and allows a contingency day for 8-hour shift
schedules that include a series of seven consecutive 8-hour shifts.
The final rule also revises the minimum duration of the break
period from 24 hours, as specified in Sec. 26.199(d)(2)(ii) of the
proposed rule, to a minimum of 34 hours. The revision more clearly
reflects the NRC's intent to require a periodic ``day off'' in which
individuals have the opportunity for two consecutive sleep periods
without an intervening work period. The 34-hour break duration provides
this opportunity, supports use of forward rotating and fixed shifts,
and allows for the possibility that individuals may work 26 hours in a
48-hour period contiguous to the break.
Proposed Requirement for a Minimum 48-Hour Break in Any 14-Day Period
and Collective Work Hour Limits
Section 26.199(d)(2)(iii) of the proposed rule would have required
a minimum 48-hour break in any 14-day period. This requirement would
have provided periodic breaks to prevent and mitigate cumulative
fatigue. Although this requirement would have also been applicable when
a reactor was operating, the NRC considered it particularly important
for the control of work hours during outages. During these periods,
successive weeks of extended work hours (i.e., up to 72 hours per week)
are common. However, the NRC received substantive comments regarding
this provision.
Several commenters expressed concern that a mandatory 48-hour break
would limit the ability of licensees to provide adequate coverage for
unplanned maintenance (e.g., to quickly restore inoperable equipment).
Several commenters also stated that the break requirements would
encourage supplemental workers to seek jobs in other industries that
offer more overtime. Therefore, commenters were concerned that this
unintended consequence of the break requirements would harm the
licensees' ability to attract and retain qualified workers. Other
commenters stated that, although the recovery concept is scientifically
supported, the approach used to prevent cumulative fatigue should
consider existing work schedules and scheduling practices. Commenters
also asserted that a 48-hour break during a series of night shifts
would adversely affect the circadian cycle of those workers who had
adjusted to the night shift. These commenters stated that for workers
on the night shift, having 1 day off provides an additional rest period
and allows the worker to maintain a consistent pattern of work and
sleep habits, thus reducing the risk of accidents on the job. However,
two days off may interfere with a worker's sleep cycle, requiring the
individual to readjust to the night shift after a 2-day break.
Commenters also asserted that a 1-day break in any 7-day period is more
than adequate when combined with other rule provisions to address
cumulative fatigue.
The NRC considered public comments on the proposed 48-hour break
requirement in conjunction with public comments on the collective work
hour limits of the proposed rule. The collective work hour limits in
proposed Sec. 26.199(f) would have required licensees to control the
average work hours of specified groups of personnel that perform the
same job function. In general, this provision would have required
licensees to ensure that the collective work hours of individuals
within each group did not average more than 48 hours per week, when
averaged over a period of up to 13 weeks. The objective of the
collective work hour limits, like the 48-hour break requirement, was to
prevent cumulative fatigue. In contrast to the 48-hour break
requirement, the collective work hour limits would typically have been
applicable only when a reactor was operating. Thus, the 48-hour break
requirement in conjunction with the 24-hour break requirement of
proposed Sec. 26.199(d)(2)(i) would have been the principal mechanism
to address cumulative fatigue during outages, and collective work hour
limits would have been the principal means of preventing cumulative
fatigue while a plant was operating.
Some commenters stated that the collective work hour limits would
be an ineffective means for addressing fatigue because it is
experienced on an individual basis. That is, the collective work hour
limits could not ensure that each individual would be protected from
cumulative fatigue. One commenter stated that the collective work hour
controls would allow licensees to force individuals to work overtime.
Other commenters stated that licensees may be able to manipulate the
collective work hour calculations. Still other commenters asserted that
the collective work hour controls were unnecessary to mitigate the
effects of cumulative fatigue and that they would limit licensee
flexibility to increase work hours for a job-duty group based on
operational needs. These commenters stated that other rule provisions,
such as the work scheduling requirement, individual work hour limits,
individual break requirements, and the provisions concerning fatigue
assessments and the self-declaration process, adequately address the
possibility of cumulative fatigue.
The NRC agrees, in part, with certain comments on the proposed 48-
hour break requirement and the collective work hour limits of the
proposed rule, and has revised the final rule accordingly. To address
cumulative fatigue during periods when a plant is operating, the NRC
replaced the proposed rule requirement for a minimum 48-hour break in
Sec. 26.199(d)(2)(iii) and the collective work hour limits in Sec.
26.199(f) with the requirements in Sec. 26.205(d)(3) of the final
rule. This section requires that each individual subject to the work
hour requirements has a minimum average number of days off per week
while the plant is operating. This provision addresses comments on the
proposed 48-hour break requirement and collective work hour limits as
follows:
The minimum day-off requirements of Sec. 26.205(d)(3)
address cumulative fatigue on an individual basis. In contrast to the
proposed collective work hour limits, the final rule provides more
uniform assurance of worker FFD and addresses the concern that,
although duty groups could have met the collective work hour
requirements, individuals in those groups may have worked excessive
hours.
The minimum day-off requirements of Sec. 26.205(d)(3)
establish limits that in most circumstances are tailored to the
duration of the shifts that individuals work (e.g., individuals on 8-
hour shifts must average at least 1 day off per week; individuals on
10-hour shifts must average 2 days off per week). As a consequence, in
contrast to the single set of break requirements in the proposed rule,
the final rule provides a better correlation between the number of
hours an individual works and the amount of restorative rest required
by the rule.
The minimum day-off requirements of Sec. 26.205(d)(3)
establish a flexible approach to addressing cumulative fatigue. This
provision requires a minimum average number of days off per week,
averaged over a shift cycle of up to 6 weeks. Accordingly, the rule
does not require that individuals meet the average each week, but does
ensure that individuals receive a minimum number of days off over the
course of the shift cycle. As a consequence, the NRC has established a
requirement that accommodates a wide range of scheduling practices and
short-term fluctuations in workload. The
[[Page 16989]]
requirement also allows licensees considerable flexibility in
accommodating individual worker preferences concerning the timing and
distribution of days off.
The minimum day-off requirements of Sec. 26.205(d)(3)
establish limits that are practical and likely to impose less
administrative burden on licensees than would have been required by the
collective work hour limits in the proposed rule.\1\ By establishing
limits that require the control of work hours on an individual basis,
licensees need not define and track membership in duty groups. In
addition, the requirements in the final rule largely adopt an approach
proposed by NEI as an industry-recommended alternative to the group
work hour controls. Thus, the NRC expects that licensees will consider
the administrative requirements of this work hour control method to be
less burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Although the NRC believes that the minimum day off
requirements of Sec. 26.205(d)(3) will impose less administrative
burden on licensees than the collective work hour limits of the
proposed rule, the NRC has conservatively retained the
administrative burden estimate of the collective work hour limits
for Sec. 26.205(d)(3) of the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address cumulative fatigue during periods when a plant is in a
unit or planned security system outage, the NRC has replaced the
proposed rule requirements for a minimum 48-hour break (Sec.
26.199(d)(2)(iii)) and the collective work hour limits applicable to
security personnel during outages (Sec. 26.199(f)(2)(i)) with the
requirements in Sec. 26.205(d)(4) and (d)(5) of the final rule.
Section 26.205(d)(4) requires that licensees provide individuals who
perform the operations, health physics or chemistry, and fire brigade
duties described in Sec. 26.4(a)(1) through (a)(3) of the final rule a
minimum of 3 days off in each successive 15-day period of a unit
outage. Section 26.205(d)(4) also requires that licensees provide
individuals who perform the maintenance duties described in Sec.
26.4(a)(4) at least 1 day off in any 7-day period. Section 26.205(d)(5)
applies to individuals who perform the security duties described in
Sec. 26.4(a)(5) of the final rule and requires a minimum of 4 days off
in each successive 15-day period of a unit outage or planned security
system outage. These final rule provisions address those comments on
the 48-hour break and collective work hour requirements applicable to
outage periods as follows:
The minimum day-off requirements of Sec. 26.205(d)(4) do
not mandate that licensees schedule 2 consecutive days off as would
have been required by the 48-hour break requirement. As a result,
licensees are better able to establish schedules that minimize the
potential for disrupting the circadian cycle of individuals who are on
fixed night shifts.
The minimum day-off requirements of Sec. 26.205(d)(4)
allow licensees substantial flexibility in scheduling the required days
off within the 15-day outage periods. As a result, licensees are able
to implement a range of scheduling options to meet known outage
schedule demands and have the flexibility to revise schedules as
necessary to address emergent needs.
The minimum day-off requirements of Sec. 26.205(d)(4)
allow licensees to use a predictable, repeating schedule. The
requirements permit a schedule of four consecutive 12-hour shifts
followed by 1 day off. This 5-day sequence can repeat three times in
each 15-day period creating a schedule that is predictable and
repeatable, characteristics typically desired by workers and
schedulers. This schedule limits the number of consecutive work shifts
to prevent cumulative fatigue and includes sufficient periodic days off
to mitigate fatigue. For individuals performing the maintenance duties
described in Sec. 26.4(a)(4) the requirement permits a predictable,
repeating schedule of 6 consecutive work days followed by 1 day off.
The minimum day-off requirements of Sec. 26.205(d)(4), in
conjunction with the other requirements in Sec. 26.205 [Work hours],
allow a maximum workweek of 72 hours and an average workweek of 67.2 to
72 hours for a period of up to 60 days. As a result, the requirements
allow licensees to offer substantial amounts of overtime within these
limits to attract supplemental workers for outage activities. The NRC
acknowledges that some individuals may want to work more than 72 hours,
or even more than 84 hours, per week. However, the NRC notes that the
work hour limits of Sec. 26.205 apply only to those duties that the
agency believes have the most direct impact on the protection of public
health and safety and common defense and security. As a result, the
requirements do not prevent individuals from working more than 72 hours
per week, unless those individuals are performing (1) duties on
structures, systems, and components (SSCs) that a risk-informed
evaluation process has shown to be significant to public health and
safety, (2) critical emergency or fire response duties, or (3) duties
as members of the site security force that are necessary for the
execution of the site security plan.
Several commenters recommended that the 8-week exclusion
period be extended to 10 weeks to accommodate extended outages for
activities such as reactor vessel head and steam generator
replacements. In conjunction with these comments, industry stakeholders
asserted at public meetings held for this rulemaking that cumulative
fatigue was not a concern during these extended outages because
individuals often had periods when they were not required to work the
extended work hours typically associated with outages. In response to
this comment, the NRC includes a provision in Sec. 26.205(d)(6) of the
final rule which allows licensees to extend the 60-day exception for
individuals by 1 week for each 7-day period the individual worked not
more than 48 hours during the outage. Thus, the rule allows the outage
exception to be extended when directly justified by an individual's
actual work history. In light of the significant work hours allowed by
the requirements, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, the NRC
considers this approach to be better justified for the management of
worker fatigue than the proposal for a blanket extension of the outage
exclusion to 10 weeks.
Section 26.205(d)(5) of the final rule applies to individuals who
perform the security duties described in Sec. 26.4(a)(5) and requires
a minimum of 4 days off in each successive 15-day period of a unit
outage or planned security system outage. This minimum days-off
requirement is comparable to the work hour limits imposed for security
personnel by order EA-03-038 and the 60-hour collective work hour
average that the proposed rule would have required. The NRC replaced
the collective work hour limits for security personnel with the
requirements in Sec. 26.205(d)(5) of the final rule for the following
three reasons:
(1) In addition to other commenters, security personnel expressed
concerns about the effectiveness of the collective work hour controls
to fully protect against impairment from fatigue for all personnel in a
group.
(2) Elimination of the 48-hour break requirement sets aside a key
requirement for preventing an excessive number of consecutive work days
that would have otherwise been allowed under the collective work hour
limits. As a result, the NRC concluded that the collective work hour
limits, absent the 48-hour break requirement, would not provide
reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant security personnel would
be protected from cumulative fatigue from excessive work hours.
(3) Revision of the outage requirements to a minimum of 4 days off
in a 15-day period avoids the potential confusion and additional
[[Page 16990]]
burden of two different approaches and accounting systems (i.e.,
minimum day off requirements and collective work hour limits) for the
control of personnel work hours at a site.
The NRC believes that the minimum day-off requirements of Sec.
26.205(d)(3) through (d)(6) of the final rule address the range of
comments on the rule, several of which expressed opposing views
regarding the need to relax the requirements or to make them more
restrictive.
The NRC does not agree with the comments that asserted that the
proposed requirements to address cumulative fatigue were unnecessary
and that a 1-day break in any 7-day period is more than adequate when
combined with the other rule provisions (e.g., self-declaration and
training) to address cumulative fatigue. The NRC has concluded that,
given a broad range of considerations, a 1-day break in any 7-day
period is an appropriate requirement for individuals performing the
maintenance duties described in Sec. 26.4(a)(4) for a limited time
period during unit outages. The NRC has also concluded that additional
days off are necessary for individuals performing other duties
described in Sec. 26.4(a) to ensure that those individuals are not
impaired by the cumulative fatigue that would result if they routinely
worked the maximum work hours that would otherwise be allowed by the
requirements in Sec. 26.205(d)(1) and (d)(2). Accordingly, the final
rule requires more than a 1-day break in any 7-day period for
individuals performing the duties described in Sec. 26.4(a)(1) through
(a)(3) and (a)(5) during unit outages. For periods when the plant is
operating, the final rule requires that all individuals working 10 or
12-hour shifts receive on average more than one day off per week. The
rule requires only one day off per week on average for individuals
working 8-hour shifts because individuals on 8-hour shifts could not be
practically scheduled at the maximum work hours allowed by the
requirements in Sec. 26.205(d)(1) and (d)(2).
The NRC acknowledges the important role of self-declaration and
training in fatigue management, as noted by some commenters, but also
recognizes the inherent limitations of these provisions to effectively
address fatigue, particularly during periods of outage schedule
conditions. As noted by Michael T. Coyle, NEI, comment letter
49, and supported by several other commenters, ``for many
supplemental workers the availability of overtime is a key factor in
where they decide to work.'' The NRC also recognizes that outages are
periods when individuals may perceive increased schedule pressure and
is aware that at least one site offered bonuses for perfect attendance
during outages. Self-declaration would likely cause individuals to
forfeit a portion of that overtime and possibly a bonus. As a result,
despite the best efforts of licensees to emphasize safety and worker
FFD, the NRC anticipates that self-declaration and training in methods
to obtain adequate rest may not be implemented as effectively or
consistently during outage periods as during periods of routine plant
operation, and therefore, they are not a substitute for work hour
controls that effectively prevent cumulative fatigue.
In asserting that a 1-day break is more than adequate to address
cumulative fatigue, industry stakeholders have cited the basis for the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's (FMCSA) minimum 34-hour
break provision for commercial motor vehicle (CMV) operators. The NRC
reviewed the FMCSA regulations (49 CFR Part 395), associated statements
of considerations (65 FR 25540 (May 2, 2000); 70 FR 49978 (Aug 25,
2005), the findings of an expert panel commissioned by the FMCSA
(Belenky et al., 1998), a petition for review of the final rule (Brief
of Public Citizen, et al., Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n,
Inc. v. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 494 F.3d 188 (D.C. Cir.
July 24, 2007) (No. 06-1035) (``FMCSA'')), and the decision of the
court with regard to the petition. FMCSA. The NRC concluded that, for a
limited range of conditions, the studies cited by FMCSA support a 34-
hour break as an appropriate minimum rest period. However, the NRC
staff does not agree that the basis cited by the FMCSA supports a
requirement that would routinely allow 72 hours of work for all nuclear
power plant workers performing functions important to the protection of
public health and safety before such a break is required. The NRC notes
that:
(1) The FMCSA regulations for CMV operators include requirements
that prohibit driving after 60 hours of duty in 7 days. By contrast the
NEI proposal would allow 72 hours of work in a 7-day period, excluding
turnover.
(2) The statement of considerations for the FMCSA regulation
establishes that long work weeks with minimum break periods are the
exception for CMV operators. The FMCSA sets forth this information as a
premise for the adequacy of the 34-hour break. By contrast, application
of the industry proposed requirement to the control of work hours
during unit outages would allow licensed operators \2\ and other plant
personnel to work regularly occurring periods of multiple consecutive
72-hour work weeks with minimum break periods. The NRC notes that a
federal appeals court vacated the 2005 provision of the FMCSA
requirements that would have permitted a 34-hour break to restart the
weekly limits. Among the reasons cited by the court was that FMCSA's
operator-fatigue model did not ``account for cumulative fatigue due to
the increased weekly driving and working hours permitted by the 34-hour
restart provision.'' FMCSA at 206.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ At multi-unit sites with common control rooms, all licensed
operators would be subject to the limits applicable to unit outages,
including operators responsible for operating units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Contrary to the NEI assertion that a 34-hour break is ``more
than adequate'' the expert panel commissioned by the FMCSA described
the 34-hour break as ``absolutely minimal.'' Further, the expert panel
noted that a fundamental assumption for the adequacy of the 34-hour
break is that it will provide two consecutive nights of uninterrupted
sleep between midnight and 6 a.m. Given common outage scheduling
practices, the NRC believes that no workers on night shifts and few
workers on day shifts would meet this assumption.
In addition, the NRC does not agree with industry stakeholder
comments that an opportunity for 8 hours of sleep between shifts
prevents cumulative fatigue. This argument is contrary to common
experience in that it implies workers should be able to work 12 hours
per day, without degradation in their performance, for an unlimited
number of days. To the contrary, the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) found that ``up to five
consecutive 12/14-hour shifts * * * creates the potential for excessive
fatigue, even when 8 hours of sleep per day are obtained'' (2000 NIOSH
3). Similarly, the NRC notes that it has received increased reports of
excessive fatigue following extended periods of 12-hour shifts, such as
in the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
and during the extended head replacement outage at Davis Besse (NRC
Inspection Report 05000346/2004003, dated March 31, 2004, ADAMS
Accession No. ML040910335). The NRC found that workers typically did
not average more than 60 work hours per week during these periods. As a
result, even if a 34-hour break was adequate to mitigate cumulative
fatigue from 72 or more hours of work, the 1 day off in a 7-day
[[Page 16991]]
period that the industry's proposed would not ensure that breaks would
be provided on a sufficient frequency to prevent weekly occurrences of
cumulative fatigue. A NIOSH review (Caruso, et al., 2004) of 52 recent
reports examining the association between long work hours and illness,
injuries, health behaviors, and performance, reported ``a pattern of
deteriorating performance on psychophysiological tests as well as
injuries while working long hours was observed across study findings,
particularly when 12-hour shifts combined with more than 40 hours of
work a week.''
Considering the limitations of the technical basis cited by the
industry and its applicability to outage scheduling practices and
operating experience and technical literature indicating that 1 day off
in 7 days is not adequate for recovery when individuals are working in
excess of 60 hours per week, the NRC concluded that the industry
proposal would not effectively prevent cumulative fatigue for
individuals performing the operations, health physics, chemistry, fire
brigade and security duties described in Sec. 26.4(a)(1) through
(a)(3) and (a)(5) for multiple consecutive weeks of extended work
hours. The NRC considers the minimum day off requirements of the final
rule provide adequate flexibility to accommodate emergent work and a
range of scheduling practices while supporting reasonable assurance of
worker FFD. By limiting the use of the maximum work hours and minimum
break guidelines to a ``temporary basis,'' the requirements of Sec.
26.205(d)(3) through (d)(6) are consistent with the NRC's long-standing
``Policy on Factors Causing Fatigue of Operating Personnel at Nuclear
Reactors.''
Proposed Reporting Requirements
Many comments addressed the reporting requirements for the fatigue
provisions. Section 26.197(e) of the proposed rule would have required
licensees to submit, as part of the annual FFD program report required
under Sec. 26.717 [Fitness-for-duty program performance data] of the
final rule, information concerning the licensee's implementation of the
work hour controls and management of worker fatigue. The proposed rule
would have required the annual report to include a summary of the
waivers the licensee approved during the calendar year, information
pertaining to instances of job duty groups exceeding a collective work
hour average of 48 hours in any averaging period during the calendar
year, and information pertaining to instances of fatigue assessments
conducted during the calendar year.
Several commenters from industry asserted that the reporting
requirements in the proposed Sec. 26.197(e) should be deleted from the
rule because they would not provide new or unique information to the
NRC, would be unnecessary to protect public health and safety, would be
unnecessary to facilitate NRC oversight of the revised rule, and would
be unduly burdensome. One commenter further stated that the NRC's
proposed FFD rule and supporting materials did not demonstrate that the
industry would fail to comply with the requirements of the revised rule
without the imposition of these reporting requirements. The commenter
asserted that the existing regulatory process is adequate to ensure
compliance with the rule. Some commenters believed that the reporting
requirement would create a significant duplication in licensee efforts,
noting that proposed Sec. 26.199(j) required periodic reviews by
licensees to assess the effectiveness of the work hour controls, and
that these reviews are documented and trended under the licensee's
corrective action program which is periodically inspected by the NRC.
Some commenters stated that the reports the rule would require
would not be a meaningful indicator of licensee performance in managing
work hours because a number of valid conditions may warrant waivers of
work hour controls. Two commenters suggested that the rule require
licensees to report the number of workers covered under Sec. 26.199(a)
[Individuals subject to work hour controls] of the proposed rule to
provide appropriate context for the annual reporting of waivers.
Several commenters from industry also stated that the NRC did not
meet its obligation under the Paperwork Reduction Act with respect to
the information collection requirements proposed in Sec. 26.197(e).
They argued that the NRC failed to adequately justify the need for
these provisions to achieve the objectives of the proposed FFD rule and
failed to objectively support its estimate of the burden placed on
affected licensees. The commenters asserted that the annual report
would require at least 30 clerical hours to develop and 20 management
hours to review.
In response to public comments on the reporting requirements, the
NRC revised certain requirements for the inclusion of fatigue
management information in the annual FFD program report. The NRC also
made conforming changes to the reporting requirements as part of
changes to other provisions of the rule.
Section 26.203(e) [Reporting] of the final rule presents the
reporting requirements associated with licensee implementation of
Subpart I. This section does not retain the requirements in proposed
Sec. 26.197(e)(2) for the reporting of information pertaining to the
control of collective work hours because the final rule does not
include collective work hour controls. In addition, the agency revised
the requirements in proposed Sec. 26.197(e)(1) and (e)(2) in response
to comments that the required information would not provide a
meaningful indication of licensee performance in managing work hours
because a number of valid conditions may warrant waivers of work hour
controls. Through its review of authorized waivers from the work hour
limits in plant technical specifications, the NRC has found that
waivers are most frequently associated with outage activities.
Accordingly, the NRC has revised the final rule to require licensees to
report whether a waiver of the work hour requirements in Sec. 26.205
was associated with an outage activity.
As a result of these revisions, the NRC will be better able to
interpret a licensee's changes in waiver use over time and understand
why certain annual reports for a given licensee may indicate a
heightened level of waiver use relative to the licensee's previous
reports. The NRC recognizes that outages are not the only cause of
waivers; however, the agency expects that most other causes of waiver
use will be for substantially shorter periods of time or involve
smaller groups of workers and that these other conditions would not
have a substantive effect on overall waiver use. For unique causes that
may have more substantive effects (e.g., licensee response to
hurricanes), the NRC is likely to be aware of or able to identify these
conditions if they were to significantly affect waiver use. The NRC
notes that the frequency of waiver use (i.e., how often individuals
exceed the work hour limits while performing functions important to
safety and security) indicates the potential for worker fatigue to
affect the performance of these functions, regardless of whether a
waiver is the result of an activity associated with an outage or a
cause that is beyond the licensee's control.
In addition to requiring an indication of whether a waiver was
associated with an outage activity, the NRC revised the annual report
requirement to require a frequency distribution of waivers for each of
the five duty groups described in Sec. 26.4(a) of the final rule. As a
result, the annual report would include, for
[[Page 16992]]
example, a table that shows the number of operators who received just
one waiver during the year, the number of operators who received two
waivers during the year, and so on. The NRC incorporated this
requirement in the final rule in response to comments that the rule
should also require licensees to report the number of workers covered
under Sec. 26.199(a) of the proposed rule to provide an appropriate
context for the annual reporting of waivers. The NRC understood that
the intent of this comment was to provide a basis for evaluating the
number of waivers from the work hour controls relative to the number of
individuals subject to those controls. The NRC chose not to require
licensees to report the number of individuals covered under Sec.
26.4(a) of the final rule because that number will vary throughout the
course of the reporting period, particularly when the reporting period
includes a unit outage. In addition, the NRC believes that the required
distribution of waivers more effectively provides context to the waiver
use information by indicating whether the waivers were concentrated
among individuals performing a certain duty and whether the waiver use
in a duty group was associated with relatively few individuals or
distributed among many individuals.
The NRC does not agree with comments that the requirements for
including fatigue management information should be deleted from the
rule because they would not provide new or unique information to the
NRC, would be unnecessary to protect public health and safety, would be
unnecessary to facilitate NRC oversight of the revised rule, and would
be unduly burdensome. In choosing to retain reporting requirements for
waiver use, the NRC considered several aspects of the work hour
requirements in the final rule. First, the NRC established the work
hour limits in the final rule at levels such that the potential for
fatigue is substantive for individuals working in excess of those
limits. Second, the rule permits licensees to authorize waivers of the
limits only for circumstances in which the additional work hours are
necessary to prevent or mitigate a condition adverse to safety or
security. Finally, the rule only requires a waiver if the individual is
operating or maintaining an SSC that a risk-informed evaluation process
has shown to be important to the protection of public health and safety
or if the individual is performing specified functions that are
essential to an effective response to a fire, plant emergency, or
implementation of the site security plan. As a result, information
concerning licensee use of waivers indicates (1) the number of hours
worked on risk-significant activities by individuals who are at
increased potential for impairment, and (2) how often a licensee must
mitigate or prevent a condition adverse to safety while relying on
individuals who are at increased potential for impairment. The NRC
considers this unique information, not otherwise reported, to be
relevant to the agency's mission.
The NRC similarly considered the need to retain reporting
requirements regarding fatigue assessments and any management actions
in response to the fatigue assessments. The NRC concluded that the
fatigue assessment information that would have been reported under the
requirements of the proposed rule is more the purview of a licensee's
corrective action program, and would have been more detailed than the
program performance data for drug and alcohol testing required under
Sec. 26.717(c) of the final rule. Accordingly, the final rule requires
licensees to report a summary of corrective actions, if any, resulting
from the licensee's analysis of waiver and fatigue assessment data. As
a consequence, the required reports will provide information that will
focus more on licensee performance in managing worker fatigue and will
enable NRC to review licensee reporting of waivers in the context of
associated corrective actions.
The NRC expects that the information provided by licensees in
response to the annual reporting requirements in Subpart I will
facilitate NRC oversight of the implementation of the requirements
through the following means:
Consistency, efficiency, and continuity of NRC oversight--
Information provided through the annual FFD program performance reports
concerning fatigue management will enable the NRC to achieve a higher
level of consistency and efficiency in the oversight of the
implementation of the requirements in Subpart I and in the enforcement
of those requirements. Without the reporting requirements, the NRC's
inspection of licensee FFD programs would likely be limited to
individual inspectors evaluating licensee fatigue management for a
sample of workers at a site for a limited time period. These
assessments would necessarily be conducted without the benefit of
broader contextual information from the site or the industry normative
information that would be available through the annual reports. In
contrast, the annual reports will help ensure a common perspective and
maintain consistency among inspectors conducting the oversight process.
In addition, the annual reports can enhance the efficiency of the NRC
inspection process by providing information necessary to allow the
agency to focus inspection resources on duty groups (e.g., security or
maintenance) that may warrant review. The reports will enable the NRC
to be better focused in preparing for the inspection, reduce the burden
of onsite inspection hours, and potentially reduce the total number of
hours required for a baseline inspection. Further, the annual reporting
will also help to achieve a more complete and continuous assessment of
licensee performance because the NRC intends to conduct the baseline
inspection of FFD programs only once every 2 years.
Evaluation of rule implementation for lessons learned--
Although the NRC and stakeholders have made extensive efforts to ensure
clear and enforceable requirements that are effective and practical for
the management of worker fatigue, the rule introduces the potential for
unintended consequences and lessons learned. In addition, changes in
the size and composition of the nuclear industry may have unforeseen
implications for site staffing and fatigue management. The NRC expects
that the site-specific and normative information obtained through the
annual reports can provide important insights regarding opportunities
to amend the rule to improve its effectiveness or reduce unnecessary
burden. The NRC notes that information provided by the FFD program
performance reports was the basis for reducing the random testing rate
for drugs and alcohol required in a previous amendment to Part 26.
Consistent interpretation of waiver criterion--The final
rule provides licensees the discretion to use waivers to exceed the
work hour limits, thereby allowing levels of work hours that could
adversely affect worker FFD. The principal basis for allowing waivers
is to reduce the additional staffing burden that licensees would
otherwise incur if waivers were not available to address exigent
circumstances. The annual reporting of waiver use in conjunction with
the corrective action summaries will enable the NRC to ensure that
licensees use this discretion in a manner consistent with the
objectives of the rule and not as a means to compensate for a lack of
adequate staffing. Further, although the use of waivers is limited to
conditions when the work hours are ``necessary to prevent or mitigate a
condition adverse to safety or security,'' the NRC recognizes the
potential for licensees to develop different
[[Page 16993]]
interpretations regarding this criterion. Some industry commenters on
the proposed rule took exception to the NRC's characterization of high
levels of waiver use at some sites as abuse. These commenters suggested
that differences in licensee waiver practices could be attributed to
the policy being subject to a number of interpretations during the many
years that it has been in effect. Regardless of the cause of the
differences in licensee use of work hour control waivers, the NRC
considers it prudent to address, through rulemaking, the lessons
learned from past implementation of the policy and provide a level of
oversight through the annual reporting requirement that will ensure
consistent implementation of the waiver criteria in the future.
In addition to the reasons cited in the preceding paragraphs
explaining the need for reporting requirements to ensure the effective
and efficient oversight of the implementation of the rule, the NRC
considers the reporting requirements to be justified and beneficial for
the following additional reasons:
Consistency with other Part 26 requirements and
performance objective--The final rule retains the requirement of the
former rule that licensees must report the results of drug and alcohol
testing and the performance objective for reasonable assurance that
individuals are not impaired from any cause (Sec. Sec. 26.719
[Reporting requirements] and 26.23(b) of the final rule). In addition,
several studies discussed in detail in Section IV.D of this document
have demonstrated that worker fatigue can produce levels of impairment
that are comparable to blood alcohol concentrations above the levels
permitted by this rule. Further, given the frequency of worker concerns
regarding fatigue and the work scheduling practices that are common
during outages, the incidence of impairment from fatigue is likely to
be greater than the very low incidence of drug and alcohol use that is
detected through testing. Therefore, the NRC considers the reporting of
information pertaining to licensee management of worker fatigue to be
consistent with the requirements for reporting information pertaining
to drug and alcohol testing, the performance objective of this
rulemaking for licensees to implement a comprehensive FFD program, and
the NRC's belief that the management of worker fatigue is no less
important to worker FFD than the effective detection and deterrence of
drug and alcohol use.
Public confidence--Public interest groups such as the UCS
and the Project on Government Oversight have commented at public
meetings that relevant information regarding worker fatigue is withheld
to either protect alleger identity or, in the case of security
personnel, plant security. In addition, several public media articles
have been published during the past 2 years reporting instances of
guards sleeping and guards fearing repercussions for refusing forced
and excessive overtime. Information submitted by licensees in the
annual reports will be publicly available and will reassure public
stakeholders that the NRC is appropriately cognizant of licensee
actions regarding fatigue management and that the NRC's oversight of
these activities is transparent to all stakeholders.
The burden is limited and justified--Section 26.203(e) of
the final rule requires licensees to report information concerning
fatigue management as part of the annual FFD program report. As a
result, the burden associated with this reporting requirement is an
incremental change to the reporting requirement for drug and alcohol
testing. In addition, the fatigue management information required by
Sec. 26.203(e) of the final rule is largely information that licensees
will have already generated to demonstrate compliance with other
provisions of Subpart I. As a result, the burden associated with the
report will be largely associated with compiling the information in an
appropriate form and reviewing that compilation. The NRC has reviewed
the public comments suggesting that the agency underestimated the
number of clerical and management hours associated with this
requirement and has taken these comments into consideration in
estimating the burden of the reporting requirements in Sec. 26.203(e)
of the final rule. Nevertheless, the NRC considers the burden
associated with the annual reporting requirements to be justified for
the reasons described in this and the preceding paragraphs.
The NRC also considered comments that the reporting requirement
ignores significant duplication in licensee efforts. The NRC agrees
that Sec. 26.205(e) of the final rule requires licensees to
periodically review and assess the effectiveness of the work hour
controls and that the licensee's corrective action program, which is
routinely inspected by the NRC, will document and trend these reviews.
However, as noted previously, the NRC considers the annual reports to
be a limited burden that will enable the NRC to provide more effective
and consistent oversight and achieve other objectives for the effective
implementation of the requirements in Subpart I.
Public Comments on FFD Programs for Construction and Manufacturing
In response to substantive public comments and industry efforts to
develop guidance on the subject, the NRC has added Subpart K to the
final rule to clarify Sec. 26.3(e) of the proposed rule, which
contained requirements for combined license holders, combined license
applicants, construction permit holders, construction permit
applicants, as well as manufacturing license holders under Part 52.
Subpart K's FFD program is intended to provide reasonable assurance
that individuals involved in the construction of a nuclear power plant
who perform specified duties at the site are fit for duty, trustworthy,
and reliable, commensurate with the potential risks to public health
and safety and the common defense and security that their activities
and access to certain information would pose.
Proposed Sec. 26.3(e) would have retained and updated the
requirements of Sec. 26.2(c) of the former rule. However, proposed
Sec. 26.3(e) would not have revised the basic approach taken in former
Sec. 26.2(c). The former rule specified the regulations in Part 26
that applied to licensees holding permits to construct a nuclear power
plant. Section 26.2(c) of the former rule required each construction
permit holder with a plant under active construction to comply with
Sec. Sec. 26.10 [General performance objectives], 26.20 [Written
policy and procedures], 26.23 [Contractors and vendors], 26.70
[Inspections], and 26.73 [Reporting requirements] of the former rule.
This provision also explained that permit holders with plants under
active construction were required to implement a chemical testing
program, including random tests, and make provisions for employee
assistance programs (EAPs), imposition of sanctions, appeals
procedures, the protection of information, and recordkeeping.
Proposed Sec. 26.3(e) would have explicitly reflected the NRC's
combined licensing procedure for nuclear power plants under 10 CFR Part
52, ``Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined
Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.'' It would have specified the
entities that are regulated by the NRC (specifically, combined license
holders before the Commission has made the finding under Sec. 52.103
[Operation under a combined license], combined license applicants who
have received authorization to construct under Sec. 50.10(e)(3),
construction permit
[[Page 16994]]
holders under Part 50, ``Domestic Licensing of Production and
Utilization Facilities,'' construction permit applicants who have
received authorization to construct under Sec. 50.10(e)(3), and
holders of manufacturing licenses under Part 52) who would be
responsible for meeting certain Part 26 requirements. (The Part 52
final rule amended Sec. 26.2(c) of the former rule to include in Sec.
26.2(c) combined license holders before the date that the Commission
makes the finding under Sec. 52.103(g), holders of manufacturing
licenses, and persons authorized to conduct the activities under Sec.
50.10(e)(3).)
The proposed rule would have replaced the cross-references to other
sections of the former rule with updated cross-references to the
related sections in the proposed rule (i.e., Sec. Sec. 26.23
[Performance objectives], 26.41 [Audits and corrective action], and
26.189 [Determination of fitness]). The proposed rule would also have
stipulated that the specified entities should implement a drug and
alcohol testing program, including random testing, and make provisions
for EAPs, imposition of sanctions, procedures for the objective and
impartial review of authorization decisions, protection of information,
and recordkeeping. However, the proposed rule did not specify in detail
how the FFD programs of the entities listed in proposed Sec. 26.3(e)
were to address these topics or the categories of workers who would be
subject to the programs.
Some comments received during the public comment period stated that
the proposed rule did not clearly describe the type of FFD programs the
NRC expected under proposed Sec. 26.3(e). Commenters stated that
because the proposed rule required FFD programs for construction to
comply with a few specific sections of the rule, it would have imposed
virtually all of the rule's requirements on FFD programs for
construction, because it would be difficult to ensure compliance with
the referenced sections of the rule without applying the entire rule.
Other comments received from industry representatives during the public
comment period indicated that the NRC should not require FFD programs
for construction that are more rigorous than industrial safety programs
implemented during construction of other large, commercial facilities
because construction activities do not pose risks to public health and
safety or the common defense and security until nuclear fuel arrives on
site. In response to these comments, the NRC staff gathered additional
information about FFD programs for construction in other industries,
developed a new Subpart K, ``FFD Programs for Construction,'' and
revised other sections of the rule to clarify the scope of requirements
for construction activities.
The results of the NRC staff's benchmarking activities indicated
that, as a result of the higher incidence of substance problems among
construction workers than other occupational groups, pre-employment,
for-cause, and post-accident drug and alcohol testing are increasingly
common at large, commercial construction projects and some labor union
coalitions have implemented drug and alcohol testing and substance
abuse treatment-referral programs for their members. In addition, the
staff also identified several private-sector entities in the
petrochemical and steel manufacturing industries that require drug and
alcohol testing, including random testing, for construction workers on
large projects, as well as employment history evaluations and other
background checks. Where safety and/or security during construction are
critical, large construction projects initiated by some Federal
agencies (e.g., the Department of Energy) require drug and alcohol
testing, including random testing, extensive background checks, and
continuous behavioral observation for the most sensitive construction
tasks. The NRC concluded that (1) implementing FFD requirements for new
nuclear power plant construction activities is consistent with the
practices of other industries, and (2) taking a graded approach to FFD
requirements, by imposing requirements that are commensurate with the
potential risks to public health and safety and the common defense and
security that the results of construction activities may pose when a
plant begins operations, is consistent with the approach implemented by
other government agencies when constructing facilities that have the
potential to affect public health and safety or the common defense and
security.
The NRC also determined that some of the requirements in proposed
Sec. 26.3(e) would be difficult to implement. For example, much of the
nuclear power plant construction workforce will likely be transient and
rapidly changing. As a result, it may be challenging to conduct random
drug and alcohol testing in a manner that would meet all of the random
testing requirements Part 26 includes for operating plants. In
addition, some new reactors will be constructed near an operating plant
that has readily accessible FFD program resources, such as a specimen
collection and alcohol testing site, a licensee testing facility, an
FFD training program, and expert staff (e.g., a substance abuse expert,
MRO, or EAP representative). However, other new reactors may be
constructed at locations that are distant from the FFD program
resources of an operating plant. Therefore, the NRC concluded that
applying some of the requirements in the proposed rule would be overly
burdensome, such as requiring random testing of all construction
workers, the requirement for all nuclear power plant construction
workers to have access to an EAP, and the proposed requirement for a
determination of fitness process performed by a substance abuse expert
under Sec. 26.189 of the final rule.
To streamline administration of the FFD program for construction,
add flexibility, and implement an approach that is commensurate with
the potential risks resulting from new plant construction, the final
rule requires two different levels of FFD requirements for workers in
different job roles. Because of their important oversight
responsibilities, the first category of workers, specified in Sec.
26.4(e), includes any individual whose duties, once construction
activities begin, require him or her to perform the following
activities at the location where the nuclear power plant will be
constructed and operated: serve as security personnel required by the
NRC; perform quality assurance, quality control, or quality
verification activities related to safety- and security-related
construction activities; based on a designation under Sec. 26.406 by a
licensee or other entity, monitor the fitness of the individuals
specified in Sec. 26.4(f); witness or determine inspections, tests,
and analyses certification required under Part 52; supervise or manage
the construction of safety- or security-related SSCs; or direct or
implement the licensee's or other entity's access authorization
program. These individuals must be subject to a full FFD program that
meets the same requirements as FFD programs for operating plants
(including random drug and alcohol testing at the 50 percent annual
rate, behavioral observation training, and a suitable inquiry/
employment history check but excluding the requirements of Subpart I)
when they are performing duties at the location where the nuclear power
plant is being constructed and will operate. However, individuals who
serve as security personnel required by the NRC must meet the
requirements applicable to security personnel in Sec. 26.4(a)(5) at
the time the licensee or other entity
[[Page 16995]]
receives special nuclear material in the form of fuel assemblies.
A new definition of ``supervises or manages'' in Sec. 26.5
explains that these terms mean the exercise of control over work
activity by an individual who is not directly involved in the execution
of the work activity, but who either makes technical decisions for that
activity without subsequent technical review, or is ultimately
responsible for the correct performance of that work activity. The
reference to security personnel is modified by the addition of the
words ``required by the NRC'' to clarify that the FFD requirements are
meant to apply to security personnel who perform duties specified by
NRC regulations and orders, while other security personnel, if any, are
not covered by the requirements.
By contrast to the requirements for those individuals listed under
Sec. 26.4(e), Sec. 26.4(f) provides that the FFD program in Subpart K
applies only to individuals who are constructing or directing the
construction of safety- or security-related SSCs. Section 26.5 explains
that ``construction or construction activities'' means the tasks
involved in building a nuclear power plant that are performed at the
location where the nuclear power plant will be constructed and
operated, and that these tasks include fabricating, erecting,
integrating, and testing safety- and security-related SSCs and the
installation of their foundations, including the placement of concrete.
At a minimum, these individuals must be subject to an FFD program that
meets the requirements of Subpart K, which emphasizes performance
objectives and does not incorporate all of the requirements of Part 26,
unless the licensee or other entity chooses to subject them to an FFD
program that meets the Part 26 requirements for operating plants,
except the fatigue management requirements in Subpart I of the final
rule. The rule adds new definitions of ``safety-related SSCs'' and
``security-related SSCs'' (described further in Section VI.A of this
SOC) that clarify the intended coverage of Sec. 26.4(f).
If a licensee or other entity specified in Sec. 26.3(c) of the
final rule chooses to implement an FFD program for construction under
Subpart K, the entity must submit to the NRC a description of the FFD
program and its implementation as part of the license, permit, or
limited work authorization application. The description must include a
written FFD policy that will be given to all individuals covered by the
program and FFD procedures. The program must include pre-assignment,
for-cause, and post-accident drug and alcohol testing. Subpart K
requires an FFD program for construction to include sanctions for FFD
policy violations, a system of files and procedures to protect personal
information, and procedures for reviewing determinations that an
individual has violated the FFD policy. The entity who elects to
implement a program under Subpart K must conduct periodic audits,
maintain records, provide reports to the NRC, and develop and apply
procedures for suitability and fitness evaluations to determine whether
to assign individuals to constructing safety- and security-related
SSCs. The program description will be evaluated as a part of the
application for the license, permit, or limited work authorization and
the NRC's finding on the application will include a finding on the FFD
program description. Before work begins on the foundations, including
placement of concrete, for the safety- or security-related SSCs under
the license, permit, or limited work authorization, the entity will be
required to implement the FFD program that it has described in its
application.
To detect and deter substance abuse by individuals who are
constructing safety- and security-related SSCs, Subpart K of the final
rule permits a licensee or other entity listed in Sec. 26.3(c) of the
final rule to subject these individuals either to random testing for
drugs and alcohol or a fitness monitoring program. Subpart K also
permits FFD programs for construction to--
(1) Collect specimens other than urine for drug testing and/or rely
on collection sites at local hospitals or clinics that conduct testing
under U.S. DOT procedures, rather than those specified in Subpart E,
``Collecting Specimens for Testing,'' of Part 26;
(2) Rely on healthcare professionals other than a substance abuse
expert to evaluate an individual's fitness;
(3) Designate the persons who will perform fitness monitoring, if
the entity elects this option, and adjust the number of fitness
monitors performing monitoring and the frequency of monitoring to
accommodate the stage of construction and local conditions; and
(4) Establish the random testing rate and limit the selection of
individuals for testing to only those who are present and constructing
safety- or security-related SSCs on a given day, if the entity elects
this option.
In the course of its analysis and development of Subpart K of the
final rule, the NRC published a Federal Register notice (71 FR 13782;
March 17, 2006) that described the NRC's alternative concepts for FFD
programs during construction and announced a meeting to obtain
stakeholder feedback. The concepts described included a requirement for
FFD policies and procedures on a limited set of topics; pre-access drug
and alcohol testing, for-cause drug and alcohol testing, and post-event
testing for accidents; requirements for protection of information;
requirements for collecting specimens and conducting alcohol tests; the
option to test specimens at a licensee testing facility; initial and
confirmatory testing of urine specimens for drugs and validity at an
HHS-certified laboratory; a review of drug test results by an MRO; and
annual reports of FFD program performance. The notice listed fatigue
management requirements, random drug and alcohol testing, the
requirement for an EAP, and the determination of fitness process
described in the proposed Part 26 rule as concepts the NRC was not
currently pursuing for FFD programs for construction. These concepts,
along with draft guidance for construction programs being prepared by
nuclear industry representatives, were discussed at the public meeting
held on March 29, 2006.
On October 24, 2006, the NRC published the entire draft final rule
text of 10 CFR Part 26 on the NRC's rulemaking Web site and, on
November 7, 2006, held a second public meeting with stakeholders to
present the technical basis for Subpart K and to describe the fitness
monitoring option included in Subpart K as an alternative to random
drug and alcohol testing of construction workers. The NRC staff
described four primary reasons for imposing regulatory requirements for
FFD programs during construction: (1) The quality of work could be
adversely affected by construction workers who are impaired by
substance abuse where studies indicate that members of this group have
the highest rates of substance abuse problems among occupational groups
in the U.S. (e.g., SAMHSA's NHSDA covering the years 2000-2001 and
SAMHSA's National Survey on Drug Use and Health covering the years
2002-2004), (2) individuals who have become addicted to illegal drugs
are susceptible to coercion and will interact with others involved in
the drug trade, (3) past experience has demonstrated that errors during
construction can adversely affect subsequent plant operations (NUREG/
CR-6819, Vols. 1-4, ``Common-Cause Failure Event Insights,'' (May 2003)
and NUREG-1837, ``Regulatory Effectiveness Assessment of Generic Issue
43 and Generic Letter 88-14,'' (October, 2005)), and (4) quality
assurance by design uses
[[Page 16996]]
a sampling process. The staff stated that, despite having a high degree
of confidence in the effectiveness of quality assurance/quality control
programs (required under 10 CFR Part 50) and the inspections, tests,
analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) programs (required under 10
CFR Part 52) to detect construction errors, it is prudent to require an
FFD program during construction to provide reasonable assurance that
impaired construction workers do not introduce faults in safety- or
security-related SSCs that may cause the SSCs to fail when the plant is
operational. In addition, the staff expressed concern that some
construction personnel who have substance abuse problems will have
access to sensitive information that could be useful to an adversary,
as well as physical access to safety- and security-related SSCs that
may provide opportunities for malicious acts.
The staff acknowledged, in part, that the full defense-in-depth
approach of the FFD program for operating plants is not appropriate for
all construction workers because many construction activities do not
have the potential to impact subsequent plant operations, and, before
fuel arrives on site, do not impose immediate radiological risks. The
staff stated that, therefore, the rule's requirements for construction
require a full FFD program for only a limited number of personnel who
have critical oversight responsibilities for verifying that safety- and
security-related SSCs are constructed properly. For workers who will
construct the safety- and security-related SSCs, the FFD program
requirements in Subpart K are less stringent. For example, Subpart K
does not require a suitable inquiry/employment history check for these
workers. In addition, the staff acknowledged the many complex
logistical challenges associated with implementing FFD requirements
during construction. Therefore, the Subpart K requirements provide a
licensee or other entity listed in Sec. 26.3(c) of the final rule
greater flexibility in implementing FFD programs for construction than
the rule permits for FFD programs at operating plants.
The staff also stated that the NRC has decided to defer adopting
requirements for reactor manufacturing facilities in the final rule.
Although proposed Sec. 26.3(e) would have covered these facilities,
and the Part 52 final rule amended Sec. 26.2(c) of the former rule to
include holders of manufacturing licenses, the NRC has concluded that
it needs additional information before proceeding with FFD requirements
for these facilities.
Stakeholder responses to the staff's presentation varied. Industry
stakeholders asserted that Part 26 requirements during nuclear power
plant construction are not warranted until shortly before fuel arrives
on site. Some industry commenters indicated that, because there are no
immediate radiological risks to public health and safety or the common
defense and security during the construction of new plants, the NRC
should not require FFD programs for construction that are more rigorous
than the industrial safety programs implemented during construction of
other large, commercial facilities. Industry stakeholders also asserted
that NRC requirements for FFD programs during construction are
unnecessary because the NRC-mandated quality assurance processes will
detect any errors in construction and are adequate to protect public
health and safety and the common defense and security, and the industry
will voluntarily implement FFD programs during construction for
industrial safety and business reasons. Industry stakeholders also
commented that the fitness monitoring program, which is permitted under
Subpart K in lieu of random drug and alcohol testing of workers who are
constructing safety- and security-related SSCs, is an unfamiliar
concept and asked several implementation questions. The staff indicated
that it will work with stakeholders to develop a guidance document that
would provide examples of acceptable means to implement an FFD program
under Subpart K, including fitness monitoring.
A representative from a public interest group stated that the
Subpart K requirements are necessary for FFD during construction.
However, this representative questioned the staff's concerns about
construction workers having unfettered access to sensitive information
as partial justification for the FFD requirements before fuel receipt.
This individual stated that safety considerations alone, independent of
any potential security concerns, warrant regulations for FFD programs
for construction before fuel receipt.
Based on the staff's assessment of the potential risks to public
health and safety and the common defense and security that the results
of construction activities may pose when a plant begins operations, the
staff concluded that--
(1) Relying on voluntary FFD programs would not ensure that all
workers who construct safety- and security-related SSCs or provide
oversight of those construction activities are subject to a program;
(2) Relying on voluntary FFD programs that include only pre-
employment, for-cause, and post-accident testing would not provide the
on-going detection and deterrence of substance abuse that is achieved
by either random testing or a fitness monitoring program;
(3) The extensive programs required for operating plants are not
warranted for all nuclear power plant construction activities, but
consistent implementation of FFD programs that provide on-going
detection and deterrence of substance abuse is warranted; and
(4) Public confidence in new plant construction will be enhanced by
a program to provide reasonable assurance that individuals who
construct safety- and security-related SSCs are fit for duty.
The NRC believes that the requirements for FFD programs for
construction in Subpart K of the final rule (1) provide reasonable
assurance that individuals who are responsible for constructing and
assuring the quality of safety- and security-related SSCs are fit for
duty, trustworthy, and reliable, commensurate with the potential risk
to public health and safety and the common defense and security, (2)
permit licensees and other entities the flexibility to implement
programs that are appropriate for local circumstances and the
challenges created by a large and transient workforce, and (3) ensure
that the privacy and other rights (including due process) of
individuals who are subject to the requirements will be protected.
Public Comment on Drug and Alcohol Testing Provisions
The NRC received several detailed comments on the drug and alcohol
testing provisions contained in Subparts E, F, and G. Most
significantly, no comments disagreed with NRC's proposed inclusion of
specimen validity testing of all urine specimens collected under Part
26 provisions. Most comments related to improving the clarity and
intent of the proposed rule. Many comments received were of a technical
nature and addressed inconsistencies between the NRC's proposed rule
and requirements in other federal testing programs, mainly the HHS's
Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing and DOT drug
and alcohol testing regulations (49 CFR Part 40). The NRC, in large
part, agrees with many of the comments and has made clarifying
revisions to the final rule.
Stakeholder commenters raised several concerns relating to the drug
and
[[Page 16997]]
alcohol provisions of the proposed rule. First, numerous comments were
received on the validity testing provisions for screening and initial
validity tests conducted at licensee testing facilities. Some
stakeholders disagreed with the NRC's proposal to permit licensee
testing facilities to use point-of-collection type tests to conduct
validity screening tests. The NRC considered the comments, but has
retained in the final rule the proposed provision to allow licensee
testing facilities to use point-of-collection type tests to conduct
validity screening tests. However, in response to the comments
received, the NRC has revised the performance testing provisions in
Sec. 26.137 to ensure that the functional capabilities of the
performance testing of screening tests meet the criteria of the final
rule. In addition, another set of comments pointed out that the
proposed rule did not afford licensee testing facilities the
opportunity to conducting specific gravity testing on specimens, which
is a required component of reporting specimens as dilute, substituted,
or invalid. The NRC continues to believe that any specimen that has a
creatinine concentration below 20 mg/dL must be forwarded for
additional testing at an HHS certified laboratory (including specific
gravity testing). Finally, the NRC received numerous comments on the
use of the term ``non-negative.'' Some commenters believed that the
term created significant confusion with respect to understanding
specimen test results. The NRC agrees with the commenters and has
replaced the term ``non-negative test result'' in the final rule with
the term ``positive'' (for drug test results) and the term
``adulterated, substituted, and invalid'' (for validity test results).
In addition, the NRC has replaced the term ``non-negative test result''
with the new term ``questionable validity'' for licensee testing
facility test results that indicate that a specimen may be adulterated,
substituted, dilute, or invalid.
VI. Section-by-Section Analysis of Substantive Changes
The final rule is organized into twelve subparts that are comprised
of related requirements, as follows:
Subpart A--Administrative Provisions
Subpart B--Program Elements
Subpart C--Granting and Maintaining Authorization
Subpart D--Management Actions and Sanctions to be Imposed
Subpart E--Collecting Specimens for Testing
Subpart F--Licensee Testing Facilities
Subpart G--Laboratories Certified by the Department of Health and
Human Services
Subpart H--Determining Fitness-for-Duty Policy Violations and
Determining Fitness
Subpart I--Managing Fatigue
Subpart J--[Reserved]
Subpart K--FFD Programs for Construction
Subpart L--[Reserved]
Subpart M--[Reserved]
Subpart N--Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Subpart O--Inspections, Violations, and Penalties
A detailed cross-reference table between the former and final Part
26 provisions is included at the end of this document.
The NRC has deleted Appendix A of the former rule and moved the
detailed requirements for conducting drug and alcohol testing that were
contained in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 26 to Subpart E [Collecting
Specimens for Testing], Subpart F [Licensee Testing Facilities], and
Subpart G [Laboratories Certified by the Department of Health and Human
Services] of the final rule.
Subpart A--Administrative Provisions
Section 26.1 Purpose
Section 26.1 of the final rule amends the language of the
corresponding section of the former rule. The final rule deletes the
term ``certain aspects'' and adds the term ``implementation'' to the
phrase in the former rule which stated, ``for the establishment and
maintenance of * * * fitness-for-duty programs,'' in order to convey
more accurately that the final rule includes requirements for
implementing FFD programs, in addition to requirements for establishing
and maintaining such programs. The NRC has moved the portion of former
Sec. 26.1 that referred to the entities who are subject to the rule to
Sec. 26.3 [Scope] in order to meet Goal 6 of the rulemaking to improve
clarity in the organization and language of the final rule, by
consolidating related requirements into one section.
Section 26.3 Scope
The NRC has reorganized, renumbered, and amended Sec. 26.3
relative to both former Sec. 26.2 [Scope], as modified by the Part 52
final rule, and proposed Sec. 26.3 [Scope] based upon the NRC's
consideration of issues raised by public comments on the proposed rule.
In general, the final rule retains and clarifies most of the provisions
pertaining to the scope of the former and proposed rules. However, one
public comment stated that the proposed rule was confusing with regard
to the entities and individuals who are subject to the different
requirements of this part. Therefore, the final rule amends this
section of the proposed and former rules and adds a new Sec. 26.4 [FFD
program applicability to categories of individuals], as discussed with
respect to that section, to clarify the rule text. Also, the final rule
makes a substantive change to the proposed rule by adding Sec.
26.3(c), which modifies the requirements of proposed Sec. 26.3(e)
pertaining to combined license holders and applicants and construction
permit holders and applicants. As in Sec. 26.3(e) of the proposed
rule, Sec. 26.3(c) of the final rule specifies the requirements to
which these entities are subject. However, the final rule modifies
these requirements and moves them to a new Subpart K [FFD Programs for
Construction]. These changes are discussed in more detail with respect
to Sec. 26.3(c).
Section 26.3(a) of the final rule specifies that licensed nuclear
power reactor operators and combined license holders after the
Commission has made the finding in Sec. 52.103(g) shall comply with
the requirements of this part, with the exception of Subpart K. The
Part 52 final rule modified former Sec. 26.2(a) to expressly require
combined license holders after the Commission has made the finding in
Sec. 52.103(g) to comply with the requirements of Part 26.
The final rule clarifies that the regulations contained in Subpart
K do not apply to the licensees and other entities specified in Sec.
26.3(a) because only entities specified in Sec. 26.3(c) are permitted
to implement an FFD program under the more flexible program
requirements in Subpart K. The final rule also adds a requirement that
licensees who receive their operating license under Sec. 50.57 after
the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register and
holders of a combined license under Part 52 after the Commission has
made the finding in Sec. 52.103(g) must implement an FFD program
meeting all of the requirements of Part 26 except Subpart K before
receipt of special nuclear material in the form of fuel assemblies. The
NRC believes that once fuel assemblies have arrived on site, the full
range of potential risks to public health and safety and the common
defense and security that Part 26 is designed to avert are possible.
Therefore, the NRC believes that a more rigorous FFD program must be in
place at this time.
Section 26.3(b) of the final rule combines Sec. 26.3(b) and (c) of
the proposed rule. This section retains the requirement in the first
sentence of former Sec. 26.2(a) that licensees who are authorized to
possess, use, or transport formula quantities of are subject to the
regulations in this part. Section 26.3(b) also retains the requirements
of former
[[Page 16998]]
Sec. 26.2(d) and specifies that corporations and entities other than a
corporation are subject to the regulations of this part because there
may be entities who are organized as firms, partnerships, limited
liability companies, or associations who may also obtain a certificate
or approved compliance plan under Part 76 and elect to engage in
activities involving formula quantities of SSNM.
However, the entities specified in this paragraph are not subject
to the requirements contained in Subpart I [Managing Fatigue] for the
reasons that are discussed with respect to Sec. 26.201
[Applicability]. With respect to the proposed rule, the final rule adds
a specification that the entities listed in Sec. 26.3(b) are not
subject to the requirements contained in Subpart K, because the
requirements of Subpart K apply only to the entities specified in Sec.
26.3(c). The provision also eliminates the cross reference to Sec.
26.25(a)(3) of the proposed rule because the final rule has moved the
proposed provisions in Sec. 26.25 to Sec. 26.4 of the final rule for
increased clarity in the rule's organization.
Section 26.3(c) of the final rule retains but modifies the
provisions of former Sec. 26.2(c) and proposed Sec. 26.3(e). Proposed
Sec. 26.3(e) would have retained and updated the requirements of Sec.
26.2(c) of the former rule before Part 26 was amended by the Part 52
final rule. However, proposed Sec. 26.3(e) did not revise the basic
approach taken in former Sec. 26.2(c), and specified the regulations
in Part 26 that applied to the entities listed in proposed Sec.
26.3(e). Section 26.3(c) of the final rule specifies that the entities
listed are subject to the requirements of Part 26, except Subpart I.
The NRC received a public comment, discussed in detail in Section V
of this document, that argued that proposed Sec. 26.3(e) was unclear
regarding the type of FFD program the NRC expected from the licensees
specified in this paragraph. The NRC acknowledged these concerns, and
for the reasons discussed in Section V of this document, the final rule
amends the requirements of proposed Sec. 26.3(e) and moves them to a
separate Subpart K. The specific requirements applicable to the
entities specified in Sec. 26.3(c) are discussed in this document with
respect to Subpart K.
Like the proposed rule, the final rule specifies the requirements
that are applicable to combined license holders before the Commission
has made the finding under Sec. 52.103(g) and to construction permit
holders. Section 26.3(c)(2) and 26.3(c)(4) specifies that combined
license holders before the Commission has made the finding under Sec.
52.103(g) and construction permit holders, respectively, are subject to
the requirements of Part 26, except for Subpart I.
The final rule, however, to be consistent with the LWA final rule,
amends the proposed rule with respect to combined license applicants
and construction permit applicants. Section 26.3(c)(1) and (c)(3)
addresses combined license applicants and construction permit
applicants, respectively. Although the proposed rule specified combined
license applicants and construction permit applicants who have
``received the authorization to construct under Sec. 50.10(e)(3),''
revisions to Part 50 in the LWA final rule have changed the content and
applicability of Sec. 50.10(e)(3). As a result, the Part 26 final rule
specifies combined license applicants and construction permit
applicants who ``have been issued a limited work authorization under
Sec. 50.10(e), if the limited work authorization authorizes the
applicant to install the foundations, including the placement of
concrete, for safety- and security-related [SSCs] under the limited
work authorization.'' Similarly, in Sec. 26.3(c)(5), the final rule,
with respect to the proposed rule, adds a new specification for early
site permit holders ``who have been issued a limited work authorization
under Sec. 50.10(e), if the limited work authorization authorizes the
early site permit holder to install the foundations, including the
placement of concrete, for safety- and security-related SSCs under the
limited work authorization.'' (The final rule contains definitions of
safety- and security-related SSCs in Sec. 26.5, and those definitions
are discussed with respect to that section.)
The LWA final rule modified the scope of activities that are
considered construction for which a construction permit, combined
license, or LWA is necessary, and specified the scope of construction
activities that may be performed under an LWA. Under an LWA, entities
are allowed to perform some or all of the following activities: driving
of piles, subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or
permanent retaining walls within an excavation, and installation of the
foundation, including placement of concrete, any of which are for an
SSC of a production or utilization facility for which either a
construction permit or combined license is otherwise required under 10
CFR 50.10(c).
The NRC has concluded that if the entity is authorized under the
LWA to perform only the driving of piles, subsurface preparation, or
placement of backfill, concrete or permanent retaining walls within an
excavation for safety- and security-related SSCs, it will not be
required to comply with Part 26. Entities who are authorized under the
LWA to perform installation of the foundation, including placement of
concrete, for safety- or security-related SSCs, however, will be
required to comply with Part 26 and establish either an FFD program
under Subpart K of Part 26 or an FFD program that complies with all of
Part 26 except Subparts I and K.
The NRC based its decision to distinguish the installation of the
foundation, including placement of concrete, from the other activities
listed under Sec. 50.10(d)(1) on the following considerations. First,
until the NRC broadened the concept of construction because of its
early interpretation of the National Environmental Policy Act,
construction requiring NRC approval in the form of a construction
permit was defined in Sec. 50.10 as ``pouring the foundation for, or
the installation of, any portion of the permanent facility on the
site.'' Thus, installation of the foundation has in the past been
identified by the agency as a key step in construction.
Second, the NRC concluded that installation of the foundation is
different in kind from the other activities listed under Sec.
50.10(d)(1). A common meaning of ``foundation'' is the underlying base
or support for a building or the substructure of a building. Therefore,
the foundation is an integral component of the fabric of a safety- or
security-related SSC, while piles, backfill, and retaining walls are
not. The foundation must be installed properly on the first attempt, as
any flaws in the foundation or voids or concrete will be difficult to
detect and impossible to correct without complete re-installation of
the foundation. The individuals who install foundations for safety- and
security-related SSCs must therefore be fit-for-duty and trustworthy
and reliable. Thus, the installation of foundations has a closer and
more significant nexus with public health and safety and common defense
and security, and the individuals who construct or direct the
construction of such SSCs should be subject to an FFD program.
Third, the public can be expected to view installation of
foundations as different from, and more important than, other
activities under an LWA because of the integral nature of foundations
with the SSCs and the nexus with public health and safety and common
defense and security. An FFD program that provides reasonable
[[Page 16999]]
assurance that the individuals who perform installation of foundations
of safety- or security-related SSCs are trustworthy and reliable and
fit to perform their duties will enhance public confidence in the NRC's
regulatory processes and the safety and security of newly constructed
nuclear power plants.
Further, Sec. 26.3(c) of the final rule explains that if the
licensees and other entities specified in Sec. 26.3(c)(1) through (5)
receive special nuclear material in the form of fuel assemblies, then
those entities must comply with all of the requirements of Part 26.
This requirement is consistent with the requirement in Sec. 26.3(a)
that licensees who receive their operating license under Sec. 50.57
after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register
and holders of a combined license under Part 52 after the Commission
has made the finding in Sec. 52.103(g) must comply with the
requirements of Part 26, except Subpart K, before the receipt of
special nuclear material in the form of fuel assemblies. Under both
Sec. 26.3(a) and (c), no later than when fuel arrives on site, the
applicable licensees and other entities must implement an FFD program
that complies with the requirements of Part 26 for the reasons
discussed with respect to Sec. 26.3(a).
The NRC has decided to defer adopting requirements for reactor
manufacturing facilities. Although these facilities would have been
covered under proposed Sec. 26.3(e) and were temporarily included in
the former Sec. 26.2(c) as amended by the Part 52 final rule, the
agency has concluded that it needs additional information before going
forward with FFD requirements for such facilities, particularly when
FFD requirements are closely linked to issues of access authorization
and physical security. The NRC is considering, but has not yet
completed, regulatory requirements on those subjects for reactor
manufacturing facilities. Any industry stakeholders with a potential
interest in pursuing a license for a reactor manufacturing facility
should ensure that they engage in early discussions with the NRC so
that suitable requirements can be developed in a timely manner.
Section 26.3(d) of the final rule retains the meaning of a portion
of former Sec. 26.23(a)(1), but amends some of the terminology used in
the former rule. Like the proposed rule, the final rule requires that a
C/V FFD program must meet the standards of Part 26 if licensees and
other entities specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of Sec. 26.3
rely upon the C/V's FFD program or program elements to meet the
requirements of Part 26. The provision adds C/Vs to the list of
entities who are subject to Part 26 in Sec. 26.3 to more clearly
convey that C/Vs may be directly subject to NRC inspection and
enforcement actions than the former rule language implied. The former
rule text presented the applicability of the rule's requirements to a
C/V's FFD program in terms of the contractual relationship between a
licensee and the C/V. For example, former Sec. 26.23(a)(1) stated,
``The contractor or vendor is responsible to the licensee [emphasis
added] for adhering to the licensee's fitness-for-duty policy, or
maintaining and adhering to an effective fitness-for-duty program;
which meets the standards of this part.'' This paragraph, and others in
the former rule, could be interpreted as implying that a C/V is
accountable to the licensee but not to the NRC, should significant
weaknesses be identified in the C/V's FFD program upon which a licensee
relies. However, this interpretation would be incorrect. Therefore,
Sec. 26.3(d) of the final rule includes C/V FFD programs and program
elements upon which the licensees and other entities specified in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section rely within this section to
convey more accurately that C/Vs are directly accountable for meeting
the applicable requirements of Part 26, not only through their
contractual relationships with the licensees and other entities who are
subject to the rule. This clarification also is necessary to maintain
the internal consistency of the final rule because some provisions of
the rule apply only to C/Vs, including, but not limited to Sec.
26.717(g). The final rule makes this change to meet Goal 6 of the
rulemaking to improve the clarity in the organization and language of
the rule.
The phrases ``program elements'' and ``licensees and other entities
specified in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section'' are used in
Sec. 26.3(d) of the final rule because C/Vs need only meet the
requirements of Part 26 for those FFD program elements upon which
licensees and other entities rely to meet the requirements of the rule.
For example, a C/V may choose to implement all of the program elements
that are required for a full FFD program under the final rule except
drug and alcohol testing. In this case, the final rule does not require
the C/V to address drug and alcohol testing in the C/V's FFD policy,
procedures, and training program; establish contracts with drug-testing
laboratories; collect specimens for drug and alcohol testing; or meet
any other requirements in the final rule that relate to conducting drug
and alcohol testing. However, if a C/V chooses to conduct drug and
alcohol testing under some or all of the conditions specified in Sec.
26.31(c) [Conditions for testing], such as for cause testing, and a
licensee or other entity specified in Sec. 26.3(a) through (c) relies
upon the results of the C/V's tests in determining whether to grant
authorization to an individual (see Subpart C [Granting and Maintaining
Authorization]), then the use of these phrases in the provision would
be correctly interpreted to mean that the C/V's drug and alcohol
testing program element must meet the final rule's requirements related
to drug and alcohol testing when conducting the tests on which the
licensee or other entity relies. In contrast, if a C/V implements an
FFD program element that is addressed in this part, but that program
element is not relied upon by a licensee or other entity specified in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section, then the provision does not
require the C/V to meet the applicable Part 26 requirements for that
FFD program element. Section 26.3(d) requires C/Vs to meet the
requirements of Subpart I of the final rule, if any nuclear power
reactor licensees specified in Sec. 26.3(a) through (c) rely upon a C/
V's fatigue management program element to meet the requirements of
Subpart I. The applicability of Subpart I to C/Vs is discussed with
respect to Sec. 26.201.
The NRC has either eliminated or moved to other places of the final
rule other provisions of former Sec. 26.23 [Contractors and vendors].
The NRC has moved the former requirement for licensees to retain
written agreements with C/Vs in the second sentence of Sec. 26.23 to
Subpart N [Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements] of the final rule.
The NRC has moved the requirement in former Sec. 26.23(a)(1) to
Subpart C of the final rule. That provision requires that individuals
who have violated an FFD program must not be assigned to work within
the scope of this part without the knowledge and consent of the
licensee. The NRC has addressed the audit requirement contained in
former Sec. 26.23(b) in Sec. 26.41(d) [Contracts] of the final rule.
By moving the former requirements to different sections of the final
rule and grouping related requirements together in one section or
subpart that addresses similar topics, the NRC has met Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
The NRC has amended and moved the requirements of proposed Sec.
26.3(e) to
[[Page 17000]]
Sec. 26.3(c) and Subpart K of the final rule. The requirements
contained in proposed Sec. 26.3(e) are discussed in this document with
regard to those sections.
Section 26.3(e) of the final rule, like the proposed rule, retains
the second sentence of former Sec. 26.2(b) and addresses entities who
are not subject to the rule. The NRC has moved the first sentence of
former Sec. 26.2(b), which addressed individuals who are not subject
to the rule, to Sec. 26.4(i) of the final rule for organizational
clarity.
Section 26.4 FFD Program Applicability to Categories of Individuals
In the proposed rule, the NRC moved the provisions in former Sec.
26.2 that specified the individuals whose duties require them to be
subject to the rule and exempt certain other individuals to Sec. 26.25
[Individuals subject to the fitness-for-duty program]. However, the NRC
has deleted Sec. 26.25 from the final rule, and has amended,
reorganized, and moved all of the provisions in proposed Sec. 26.25 to
a new Sec. 26.4 to group related applicability requirements together
in one section.
The provisions moved into new Sec. 26.4 include the second
sentence of former Sec. 26.2(a), the first sentence of former Sec.
26.2(b), and the portion of the second sentence of former Sec. 26.2(d)
that pertained to personnel. The NRC determined that separating into
two different sections the requirements that address the entities who
are subject to the rule and the requirements that address the
individuals who must be subject to the rule makes the two sets of
provisions easier to locate within the final rule without compromising
the intended meaning of these provisions. Also, moving the
applicability requirements for individuals into Subpart A [Scope] from
Subpart B [Program Elements], where they were located in the proposed
rule, is appropriate because some categories of individuals who are
subject to the rule are not subject to Subpart B of the final rule. The
applicability requirements in Sec. 26.4 clearly specify the categories
of individuals who are subject to Part 26. The NRC determined that
grouping all of the applicability requirements into one subpart of the
final rule increases the ease of locating these provisions, consistent
with Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization
of the rule.
Section 26.4(a) of the final rule retains portions of proposed
Sec. 26.25(a)(1). Proposed Sec. 26.25(a)(1) amended portions of
former Sec. 26.2(a) and (d) and described the individuals whose duties
require them to be subject to Part 26. The final rule specifies that
the persons who are granted unescorted access to nuclear power reactor
protected areas by the licensees and other entities in Sec. 26.3(a)
and (c), as applicable, and who perform the duties in Sec. 26.4(a)(1)
through (a)(5) shall be subject to an FFD program that meets the
requirements of this part, except Subpart K but including Subpart I.
The NRC has moved the categories of individuals specified in Sec.
26.199(a)(1) through (a)(5) of the proposed rule to Sec. 26.4(a)(1)
through (a)(5) of the final rule in order to group together all related
applicability requirements for individuals in one section. This change
is consistent with Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the
organization and language of the rule. Additional concerns regarding
the reasons why individuals performing these duties shall be subject to
the fatigue management provisions of Subpart I are discussed with
respect to Sec. 26.205(a) [Individuals subject to work hour controls].
The final rule clarifies that these individuals may not be subject to
the more flexible FFD program described in Subpart K because they may
be granted unescorted access by the licensees in Sec. 26.3(a), to whom
all of the requirements of this part, except Subpart K, apply, and
entities in Sec. 26.3(c), as applicable, to whom all of the
requirements of this part apply.
Section 26.4(b) of the final rule retains portions of and amends
proposed Sec. 26.25(a)(1). The final rule adds Sec. 26.4(b) to
clarify that individuals who are granted unescorted access to nuclear
power reactor protected areas by the licensees and other entities in
Sec. 26.3(a) and (c), as applicable and who do not perform the duties
described in Sec. 26.4(a), shall be subject to an FFD program that
meets all of the requirements of Part 26, except Sec. 26.205 [Work
hours] through Sec. 26.209 [Self-declarations] and Subpart K. Section
26.4(b) does not permit these individuals to be subject to an FFD
program that meets the more flexible requirements of Subpart K because
they may be granted unescorted access to protected areas by the
licensees in Sec. 26.3(a), to whom all of the requirements of this
part, except Subpart K, apply, and the entities in Sec. 26.3(c), as
applicable, to whom all of the requirements of this part apply. This
paragraph does not require the individuals in this paragraph to be
subject to an FFD program that meets the requirements of Sec. 26.205
through Sec. 26.209 for the reasons discussed with regard to Sec.
26.205(a).
Section 26.4(c) of the final rule retains and amends proposed Sec.
26.25(a)(2). Proposed Sec. 26.25(a)(2) amended portions of former
Sec. 26.2(a) and (d) and described the individuals whose duties
require them to be subject to Part 26. Section 26.4(c) of the final
rule states that all persons who are required by a licensee or other
entity in Sec. 26.3(a), and, as applicable, (c) to physically report
to the licensee's Technical Support Center or Emergency Operations
Facility shall be subject to an FFD program that meets all of the
requirements of this part, except Sec. 26.205 through Sec. 26.209 and
Subpart K. Section 26.4(c) of the final rule does not permit these
individuals to be subject to an FFD program that meets the more
flexible requirements of Subpart K because they may be granted
unescorted access by the licensees in Sec. 26.3(a), to whom all of the
requirements of this part, except Subpart K, apply, and the entities in
Sec. 26.3(c), as applicable, to whom all of the requirements of this
part apply. This paragraph also does not require the specified
individuals to be subject to an FFD program that meets the requirements
of Sec. 26.205 through Sec. 26.209 for the reasons discussed with
regard to Sec. 26.205(a).
Section 26.4(d) of the final rule retains and amends portions of
proposed Sec. 26.25(a)(3). Proposed Sec. 26.25(a)(3) amended the
portions of former Sec. 26.2(a) and (d) and described the individuals
whose duties require them to be subject to Part 26. Section 26.4(d) of
the final rule specifies that any individual whose duties for the
licensees and other entities in Sec. 26.3(b) require him or her to
have the types of access or perform the activities in paragraphs (d)(1)
through (d)(5) shall be subject to an FFD program that meets all of the
requirements of this part, except Subparts I and K. Section 26.4(d) of
the final rule does not require these individuals to be subject to an
FFD program that meets the requirements of Subparts I or K, which is
consistent with the provisions of the proposed rule.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.4(e) to the final rule to specify that
individuals whose duties when construction activities begin require
them to have the types of access or perform the activities specified in
Sec. 26.4(e)(1) through (e)(6) at the location where the nuclear power
plant will be constructed and operated must be subject to a rigorous
FFD program that complies with the requirements of Part 26, except for
the requirements of Subparts I and K. These individuals have direct
responsibility for assuring the quality and security of construction
activities and, thereby, the safety and security of the completed
nuclear power plant. The NRC considers
[[Page 17001]]
it prudent that these personnel are verified to be trustworthy and
reliable, as demonstrated by the avoidance of substance abuse, and fit
for duty with an FFD program that is equivalent to the program required
for an operating plant, which includes a 50 percent random testing rate
and a suitable inquiry and employment history check. These individuals
include all individuals whose duties at the location where the nuclear
power plant will be constructed and operated require them to: (1) Serve
as security personnel required by the NRC, until the licensee or other
entity receives special nuclear material in the form of fuel
assemblies, at which time individuals who serve as security personnel
required by the NRC must meet the requirements applicable to security
personnel in Sec. 26.4(a)(5); (2) perform quality assurance, quality
control, or quality verification activities related to safety- and
security-related construction activities; (3) based on a designation
under Sec. 26.406 by a licensee or other entity, monitor the fitness
of the individuals specified in Sec. 26.4(f) (and thus has also
received fitness monitoring training); (4) witness or determine
inspections, tests, and analyses certification required by Part 52; (5)
supervise or manage the construction of safety- or security-related
SSCs; or (6) direct, as defined in Sec. 26.5, or implement the access
authorization program. Section 26.4(e)(5) specifies that an individual
who ``supervises or manages the construction of safety- or security-
related SSCs'' must be subject to an FFD program that complies with the
requirements of Part 26, except the requirements of Subparts I and K.
The NRC has added this provision based upon information from
stakeholders at public meetings at which the conceptual framework for
Subpart K was discussed. The NRC has included a definition of
``supervises or manages'' in the final rule, which means ``exercises
control over a work activity by an individual who is not directly
involved in the execution of the work activity.'' The final rule
specifies that this requirement applies only to those individuals who
supervise or manage the construction of safety- or security-related
SSCs ``at the location where the nuclear power plant will be
constructed and operated'' (i.e., only those individuals whose
activities at the site where the nuclear power plant will be
constructed and operated may negatively impact public health and safety
and the common defense and security).
Section 26.4(e)(6)(i) through (e)(6)(vii) specifies that
individuals who direct or implement the licensee's or other entity's
access authorization program during construction must be subject to an
FFD program that complies with the requirements of Part 26, except the
requirements of Subparts I and K. The NRC expects that, in the absence
of an order or regulation requiring a specific access authorization
program during construction, an access authorization program during
construction would require individuals to perform the same duties and
activities as would a licensee's access authorization program under
Sec. 73.55 and Sec. 73.56 when the plant is operating. These duties
and activities include having access to the information used by the
licensee or other entity to make access authorization determinations,
including information stored in electronic format, as specified in
(e)(6)(i); making access authorization determinations, as specified in
(e)(6)(ii); issuing entry-control picture badges in accordance with
access authorization determinations, as specified in (e)(6)(iii);
conducting background investigations or psychological assessments used
by the licensee or other entity to make access authorization
determinations, as specified in (e)(6)(iv); adjudicating reviews or
appeals of access authorization determinations, as specified in
(e)(6)(v); auditing the access authorization program, as specified in
(e)(6)(vi); or performing any of the activities or having any of the
duties listed in Sec. 26.4(e)(6) for any C/V upon whom the licensee's
or other entity's access authorization program will rely, as specified
in (e)(6)(vii). Section 26.4(e)(6)(iv) includes the following exception
for individuals who conduct background investigations or psychological
assessments used by the licensee or other entity to make access
authorization determinations: ``He or she shall be subject to
behavioral observation only when he or she is present at the location
where the nuclear power plant will be constructed and operated, and
licensees and other entities may rely on a local hospital or other
organization that meets the requirements of 49 CFR Part 40, `Procedures
for Department of Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing
Programs' (65 FR 41944; August 9, 2001) to collect his or her specimens
for drug and alcohol testing.'' The requirements for persons conducting
background checks and psychological assessments are relaxed for reasons
similar to requirements for MROs and certain FFD program personnel, as
described in detail with respect to Sec. 26.31(b)(1)(v) and (b)(2).
The NRC has added the requirements of Sec. 26.4(e)(6) in accordance
with Goal 1 of this rulemaking, which is to update and enhance the
consistency of 10 CFR Part 26 with advances in other relevant Federal
rules and guidelines.
Section 26.4(e)(1) includes the phrase ``until the licensees or
other entities receive special nuclear material in the form of fuel
assemblies, at which time individuals who serve as security personnel
required by the NRC must meet the requirements applicable to security
personnel in paragraph (a)(5) of this section'' to clarify that, once
fuel is received on site, security personnel must be subject to all the
requirements of this part, except the requirements of Subpart K, and
including the requirements of Subpart I. The individuals listed in
Sec. 26.4(e)(2) through (6), once construction activities begin and
until a licensee or other entity specified in Sec. 26.3(a) or (c)
grants them unescorted access to the nuclear power plant protected
areas, must be subject to the requirements of this part, except the
requirements of Subparts I and K. However, once the individuals listed
in Sec. 26.4(e)(2) through (6) are granted unescorted access to the
nuclear power plant protected areas, they must be subject to the
requirements of Sec. 26.4(b), which require them to be subject to the
requirements of this part, except those in (Sec. Sec. 26.205 through
26.209 and Subpart K.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.4(f) to the final rule to specify the
individuals involved in the construction of a new reactor plant who, at
the licensee's or other entity's discretion, must be subject to either
a more flexible FFD program under Subpart K, or a more rigorous FFD
program that meets the requirements in the other portions of Part 26,
except Subparts I and K. These individuals include any individual who
is constructing or directing the construction of safety- or security-
related SSCs at the location where the nuclear power plant will be
constructed and operated. However, if and when a licensee or entity
specified in Sec. 26.3(a) or (c) grants these individuals unescorted
access to the nuclear power plant protected area, these individuals
must be subject to the requirements of Sec. 26.4(a) or (b), as
applicable. As specified by the definition of (constructing or
construction activities' in Sec. 26.5, these tasks include
fabricating, erecting, integrating, and testing safety- or security-
related SSCs and the installation of their foundations, including the
placement of concrete. The final rule also contains a definition of
``directing'' in Sec. 26.5, which means
[[Page 17002]]
the exercise of control over a work activity by an individual ``who is
directly involved in the execution of the work activity.'' This
definition is distinguished from the term ``supervises or manages,''
used in Sec. 26.4(e)(5), which means the exercise of control over a
work activity by an individual ``who is not directly involved in the
execution of the work activity.'' The NRC determined that it is
necessary to impose FFD requirements on individuals who are
constructing or directing the construction of safety- or security-
related SSCs because (1) the quality of work could be adversely
affected by construction workers who are impaired by substance abuse
where studies indicate that members of this group have the highest
rates of substance abuse problems among occupational groups in the U.S.
(e.g., SAMHSA's NHSDA covering the years 2000-2001 and SAMHSA's
National Survey on Drug Use and Health covering the years 2002-2004),
(2) individuals who have become addicted to illegal drugs are
susceptible to coercion and will interact with others involved in the
drug trade, (3) past experience has demonstrated that errors during
construction can adversely affect subsequent plant operations (NUREG/
CR-6819, Vols. 1-4, ``Common-Cause Failure Event Insights,'' (May 2003)
and NUREG-1837, ``Regulatory Effectiveness Assessment of Generic Issue
43 and Generic Letter 88-14,'' (October 2005)), and (4) quality
assurance by design uses a sampling process. Despite having a high
degree of confidence in the effectiveness of quality assurance and
ITAAC programs to detect construction errors, the NRC believes it is
prudent to require an FFD program during construction to provide
reasonable assurance that impaired construction workers or individuals
directing construction workers do not introduce faults in safety- or
security-related SSCs that may cause the SSCs to fail to perform their
intended functions when the plant is operating. In addition, the NRC is
concerned that some construction personnel who have substance abuse
problems will have access to sensitive information that could be useful
to an adversary, as well as physical access to safety- and security-
related SSCs that may provide opportunities for malicious acts.
Therefore, the NRC is requiring individuals who are directly involved
in constructing safety- and security-related SSCs to be subject to an
FFD program.
Section 26.4(g) of the final rule contains the provisions in
proposed Sec. 26.25(a)(4). Proposed Sec. 26.25(a)(4) clarified the
NRC's original intent that FFD program personnel must be subject to the
FFD program. Although former Section 2.3 in Appendix A to Part 26
required licensees to carefully select and monitor individuals who are
responsible for administering the drug and alcohol testing program
based upon the highest standards of honesty and integrity, some
licensees' testing programs did not include all of the FFD program
personnel who the NRC originally intended to be subject to testing. The
final rule clarifies the NRC's original intent because the actions of
these individuals have an ongoing effect on public health and safety
and the common defense and security as a result of their responsibility
to ensure that FFD programs are effective. In addition, these
individuals' actions affect the confidence that the public, management,
and individuals who are subject to testing have in the integrity of the
program and the accuracy and reliability of test results. Individuals
who are involved in the day-to-day operations of an FFD program are in
a position to permit substance abusers to remain undetected. For
example, specimen collectors could inadvertently commit errors when
testing others as a result of being impaired from drug or alcohol abuse
or intentionally omit testing an individual because of motives
associated with maintaining a collector's substance abuse or empathy
with an abuser. Further, several reported incidents have confirmed the
need to assure that FFD program personnel meet the highest standards of
honesty, integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness. For example, one
licensee added specimen collectors to the testing pool after
investigating an allegation and determining that two collectors were
substance abusers. In another instance, a contracted MRO who was not in
the testing pool was reported to be an alcoholic and an abuser of
prescription drugs. Some MROs who provide their services to other
Federally regulated industries also have been identified as substance
abusers. Therefore, the revision to former Sec. 26.2(a) fulfills the
NRC's original objective and requires licensees and other entities to
extend their programs to include FFD personnel who (1) can link test
results with the individual who was tested before an FFD policy
violation determination is made, including, but not limited to, the
MRO, as specified in Sec. 26.4(g)(1); (2) make determinations of
fitness, as specified in Sec. 26.4(g)(2); (3) make authorization
decisions, as specified in Sec. 26.4(g)(3); (4) are involved in
selecting or notifying individuals for testing, as specified in Sec.
26.4(g)(4); or (5) are involved in the collection or on-site testing of
specimens, as specified in Sec. 26.4(g)(5).
Although job titles and responsibilities may differ among different
Part 26 FFD programs, examples of FFD program personnel who are subject
to Part 26 under the final rule include, but are not limited to, the
following: The FFD program manager under Sec. 26.4(g)(1) through
(g)(5); the MRO and MRO staff under Sec. 26.4(g)(1); the licensee's or
other entity's reviewing officials under Sec. 26.4(g)(3); specimen
collectors under Sec. 26.4(g)(5); SAEs who are under contract to or
employed by the FFD program under Sec. 26.4(g)(2); and licensee
testing facility personnel under Sec. 26.4(g)(5). In some cases,
information technology personnel who design and implement software
programs for selecting individuals for random testing also may be
subject to the rule under Sec. 26.4(g)(4) if such personnel have
knowledge of who was selected for random testing before the individual
is notified or the ability to affect the selection of specific
individuals for random testing.
Section 26.4(g) of the final rule amends the proposed rule to
clarify the requirements that the FFD programs specified in this
paragraph must meet. The section specifies that FFD program personnel
who are involved in the day-to-day operations of the program, as
defined by the procedures of the licensees or other entities, and whose
duties require them to have the types of access and perform the
activities in Sec. 26.4(g)(1) through (g)(5) shall be subject to an
FFD program that meets all of the requirements of Part 26, except
Subparts I and K, and at the licensees's discretion, Subpart C. The
final rule clarifies that the procedures referenced are those of the
licensees and other entities specified in Sec. 26.3(a) through (c)
and, as applicable, (d). Licensees may use different FFD program
personnel for a Subpart K program, in which case, those FFD program
personnel would be subject to a full program under the rule. However,
individuals specified in Sec. 26.4(i)(1) are not subject to an FFD
program under Part 26. The term ``as applicable'' in this provision
specifies that entities listed in Sec. 26.3(d) must subject FFD
program personnel to all of the requirements of this part if they
perform the activities specified in Sec. 26.4(g). The final rule also
clarifies that the FFD programs for FFD program personnel performing
the listed activities in Sec. 26.4(g) must meet all the requirements
of Part 26, except Subparts
[[Page 17003]]
I and K, which is consistent with the provisions of proposed rule. The
final rule clarifies that the licensees and other entities may subject
FFD program personnel to an FFD program that meets the requirements of
Subpart C, for the reasons discussed with respect to Sec. 26.31(b).
These clarifications are consistent with Goal 6 of this rulemaking to
improve clarity in the organization and language of the final rule.
Section 26.4(h) retains and amends the requirements contained in
proposed Sec. 26.25(d). Proposed Sec. 26.25(d) clarified that
individuals who have applied for authorization or perform duties that
require them to be subject to Part 26 also would be subject to some
provisions of Part 26. The former Part 26 required an applicant for
authorization to provide a written statement related to his or her past
activities under this part in former Sec. 26.27(a)(1); provide
permission to the licensee to conduct a suitable inquiry in former
Sec. 26.27(a)(2); and submit to pre-access testing in former Sec.
26.24(a)(1). Although the proposed rule used general terms, such as
``applicable requirements of this part'' and ``applicable protections
of this part,'' the final rule clarifies the requirements to which the
individuals specified in this paragraph are subject. The final rule
requires that individuals who have applied for authorization to have
the types of access or perform the activities described in Sec.
26.4(a) through (d) shall be subject to the requirements in Sec. Sec.
26.31(c)(1), 26.35(b), 26.37, 26.39 and the applicable requirements of
Subparts C, and E [Collecting Specimens for Testing] through H
[Determining Fitness-for-Duty Violations and Determining Fitness].
These clarifications ensure the internal consistency of the final rule
and meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the
organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.4(i)(1) through (i)(3) contains the provisions of
proposed Sec. 26.25(b)(1) through (b)(3). The final rule groups
together in one paragraph the former rule's provisions that identify
individuals who would not be subject to the rule. This change has been
made to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the
organization and language of the rule.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.4(i)(1) to the final rule as a result of
extensive discussions with industry stakeholders at the public meetings
mentioned in the Section I.D of this document. Industry stakeholders
expressed strong concern that the related language in the affirmed rule
(which was discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule) that
delineated the FFD program personnel who must be subject to Part 26 was
too broad. Stakeholders agreed that FFD program personnel who work on
site and are involved in the day-to-day operations of the FFD program
should be subject to the rule. However, the stakeholders noted that the
language used in the affirmed rule was so vague that it could be
interpreted as requiring, for example, that offsite human resources
staff at a licensee's or other entity's corporate offices, who may have
access to some FFD information about individuals, must be covered, as
well as any medical or treatment personnel and their managers, at a
hospital or substance abuse treatment facility who provide an
occasional FFD program service. These interpretations of the intent of
the affirmed rule provisions would be incorrect.
The stakeholders also strongly disagreed with the requirement in
the affirmed rule that some FFD program personnel who maintain offices
at locations other than a licensee's or other entity's facilities and
are not involved in day-to-day program operations, such as EAP
counselors and some contract MROs, should be subject to the rule. The
stakeholders indicated that they believe the honesty and integrity of
such off-site personnel is maintained through their professions'
oversight and standards, with the result that requiring these
individuals to be subject to the rule would create a significant and
unnecessary regulatory burden. Stakeholders stated that the regulatory
burden would result from the significant logistical difficulties
involved in ensuring that these individuals are subject to behavioral
observation and drug and alcohol testing, and excessive costs to hire
additional MRO(s) to review any positive, adulterated, substituted, or
dilute drug test results from MRO(s) who serve the FFD program.
Based on the stakeholders' input, lessons learned from FFD program
experience since the rule was first implemented, the experience gained
by other Federal agencies and their regulated industries, and the
continuing need to ensure that FFD program personnel meet the highest
standards of honesty and integrity, the NRC added Sec. 26.4(i)(1) to
the final rule. The provision excludes from the rule individuals who
may be called upon to provide an FFD program service to a licensee or
other entity in special circumstances and who meet all of the following
criteria:
(1) They are not employed by the licensee or other entity;
(2) They do not routinely provide services to the licensee's or
other entity's FFD program; and
(3) They do not normally work at a licensee's or other entity's
facility.
Examples of individuals who are not subject to the rule under this
provision may include, but are not limited to, a nurse at a local
hospital who collects a single specimen for a post-event test from an
individual who has been injured, and a counselor at a residential
substance abuse treatment facility who performs behavioral observation
of a patient while the individual is in residence. Personnel who meet
the three criteria specified in the paragraph are excluded from the FFD
program because the limited nature of their involvement with the FFD
program makes it unlikely that they would be subject to coercion or
influence attempts to subvert the testing process and the NRC is not
aware of any reports indicating that these types of individuals have
been involved in any adverse incidents.
However, Sec. 26.4(g) of the final rule requires MROs and SAEs to
be subject to Part 26 (see the discussion of Sec. 26.187 [Substance
abuse expert] in Section VI of this document for a detailed description
of the SAE's roles and responsibilities under the FFD program), as well
as any EAP counselor who serves as the SAE for a licensee's or other
entity's FFD program. Individuals who serve in these positions play the
key roles of determining whether a positive, adulterated, or
substituted drug test result is an FFD policy violation (i.e., the MRO
under Sec. 26.185) and whether an individual is fit to safely and
competently perform the duties that require the individual to be
subject to this part (i.e., the SAE). Although the NRC recognizes the
significant logistical difficulties and costs that may be associated
with covering these individuals, the NRC concluded that MROs and SAEs
play such critical roles in the effective functioning of an FFD program
that ensuring their continuing honesty and integrity by requiring them
to be subject to the rule is warranted.
Section 26.4(i)(2) and (i)(3) retains the first sentence of former
Sec. 26.2(b) but divides it into two paragraphs. This organizational
change makes it easier to locate these requirements within the rule
text and to support cross-referencing to these paragraphs from other
portions of the rule. The NRC has moved the second sentence of former
Sec. 26.2(b) to Sec. 26.3(e) of the final rule, rather than retain it
in this provision, because it addressed entities who would not be
subject to the rule, rather than individuals. The NRC has made these
[[Page 17004]]
changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the
organization and language of the rule.
The final rule adds a new Sec. 26.4(i)(4), which specifies that
FFD program personnel of a program that is regulated by another Federal
agency or State upon which a licensee or other entity relies to meet
the requirements of this part, as permitted in Sec. 26.4(j), Sec.
26.31(b)(2), and Sec. 26.405(e)(3) are not subject to a licensee's or
other entity's program if the FFD program personnel are not employed by
the licensee or other entity and their normal workplace is not at the
licensee's or other entity' facility.
Section 26.4(j) contains the provisions of proposed Sec. 26.25(c).
This provision provides that persons who are covered by a program
regulated by another Federal agency or State need not also be covered
by duplicate elements of a licensee's or other entity's FFD program.
Duplicate testing and training requirements applicable to an
appreciable number of individuals working at nuclear facilities have
become an increasing problem as the facilities have implemented the
DOT's drug and alcohol testing requirements [49 CFR Part 40, 65 FR
41944, August 9, 2001]. This revision reduces the burden on some
individuals who are currently subject to Federal and State programs
with requirements that duplicate those of Part 26. Minor differences in
specific program requirements for conducting drug and alcohol testing
would be unlikely to adversely affect the ability of a licensee's or
other entity's FFD program to meet the performance objectives of this
part. The licensee or other entity continues to be responsible for
implementing any Part 26 program elements that may not be addressed by
the alternate Federal or State program. These program elements may
include, but are not limited to, providing behavioral observation and
initiating for cause testing, if necessary, when an individual who is
covered by an alternate program is on site at a licensee's or other
entity's facility and is performing the duties that require the
individual to be subject to the rule, as well as immediate removal from
duty of persons whose fitness may be questionable.
Section 26.4(j)(1) through (j)(5) of the final rule contains the
provisions in proposed Sec. 26.25(c)(1) through (c)(4) and (c)(6). The
final rule lists the necessary characteristics of an alternative
Federal or State program that, under the final rule, licensees and
other entities may rely upon to satisfy the requirements of this part
for an individual who is subject both to Part 26 and an alternative
program. Paragraphs 26.4(j)(1) and (j)(3) permit licensees and other
entities to rely on the alternative program to meet the final rule's
drug testing requirements if the alternative program tests for the
drugs and drug metabolites that are specified in the final rule at or
below the cutoff levels established in the final rule and an HHS-
certified laboratory conducts the program's specimen validity and drug
testing. Similarly, Sec. 26.4(j)(2) permits licensees and other
entities to rely on the alternative program to meet the final rule's
alcohol testing requirements if the alternative program's alcohol
testing procedures and devices meet the final rule's requirements and
the alternative program uses cutoff levels that are at least as
stringent as those specified in Sec. 26.103(a). Section 26.4(j)(4)
permits the licensee or other entity to rely on an alternative
program's FFD training if that training addresses the knowledge and
abilities listed in Sec. 26.29(a)(1) through (a)(10). If the licensee
or other entity relies on the alternative program, Sec. 26.4(j)(5)
requires the licensee or other entity to ensure that the alternative
program informs the licensee or other entity of any FFD violations.
The final rule deletes the provision that was contained in proposed
Sec. 26.25(c)(5). The proposed provision allowed individuals subject
to Part 26 and to a Federal agency- or State-regulated program to be
covered only by those elements of an FFD program that are not included
in the Federal agency or State program if an impartial and objective
procedure is provided for the review and reversal of any findings of an
FFD policy violation. The NRC has deleted this provision because it
recognizes that it would be impractical to require a licensee to ensure
that a Federal agency or State program would include an impartial and
objective procedure for the review and reversal of any findings of an
FFD policy violation. Such assurance would be beyond the licensee's
ability to obtain or provide because the licensee would not control the
Federal agency or State program. Therefore, this change is consistent
with Goal 5 of this rulemaking to improve Part 26 by eliminating or
modifying unnecessary requirements.
These provisions are consistent with the former and final rules'
approaches to permitting licensees and other entities to rely on C/V
FFD programs and program elements to meet the requirements of this part
if the C/V's program or program element meets the requirements of this
part, as discussed with respect to Sec. 26.21 [Fitness-for-duty
programs]. In general, permitting licensees and other entities to rely
on FFD programs and program elements that are implemented by others,
when those programs or program elements meet the requirements of this
part, fulfills the rule's performance objectives and improves Part 26
by eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements, which is Goal 5
of this rulemaking. However, an important difference between the final
rule's permission for licensees and other entities to rely on the
programs of other Federal and State agencies, compared to the final
rule's permission for licensees and other entities to rely on C/V
programs, is that the final rule does not require licensees and other
entities to audit the alternate Federal and State programs under Sec.
26.41 [Audits and corrective action]. Auditing Federal and State
programs is unnecessary because these programs are subject to other,
equally effective audit and inspection requirements. Relieving
licensees and other entities who are subject to this part from an audit
requirement also is in keeping with Goal 5 of this rulemaking.
Section 26.5 Definitions
Section 26.5 amends former Sec. 26.3 [Definitions] to (1) clarify
some definitions; (2) make the listed terms and their definitions more
consistent with those used by other Federal agencies (including SAMHSA
and DOT); (3) define new terms used in other sections of the rule; and
(4) move definitions into this section from former Section 1.2 in
Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 26, which contained definitions of important
terms used in Appendix A to Part 26. The rule also eliminates six terms
in former Sec. 26.3 and Section 1.2 in Appendix A to Part 26 because
they are fully defined in the provisions of the final rule or are not
used in the final rule. In addition, the rule eliminates redundant
definitions of some terms, which appear in both former Sec. 26.3 and
Section 1.2 in Appendix A to Part 26. Finally, the NRC has revised some
definitions to make them simpler and easier to understand, consistent
with the NRC's commitment to using plain language. For example, some
definitions in the former rule included requirements that were also
contained in other sections of the rule. In these instances, the final
rule eliminates the embedded requirements from within the definitions,
but retains the definitions in this section. The NRC has moved these
requirements to the related sections of the final rule for
organizational clarity.
The final rule modifies several definitions of the proposed rule
due to public comment or to increase clarity in the language of the
rule, consistent with Goal 6 of the rulemaking. These changes
[[Page 17005]]
are discussed below. Otherwise, the final rule adopts the definitions
of this section as proposed, without change.
The NRC has made the majority of the changes to this section as a
result of adding new requirements for urine drug testing, including
specimen validity testing, to the rule. The rule incorporates advances
in the science and technology of urine drug testing that are based on
the most recent revision to the HHS Guidelines, as published in the
Federal Register on April 13, 2004 (69 FR 19643). These changes require
adding terms to Sec. 26.5, modifying a number of the terms that were
used in the former rule, and revising the definitions of some terms in
the former rule that are also used in the final rule, as described in
the following paragraphs.
The final rule modifies several terms that are used in the former
and proposed rules to describe the results of drug and alcohol testing,
in order to reduce the number of terms, increase consistency with terms
used by other Federal agencies, and address the addition of urine
specimen validity testing requirements. The final rule has deleted the
term ``non-negative'' from the proposed rule. The NRC has added the
term ``non-negative'' to the proposed rule to refer to any adverse test
result from the different types of urine testing that are required
under the final rule. However, the NRC received a public comment that
requested clarification of ``non-negative'' with respect to
``positive'''' in the proposed rule. Therefore, the NRC has deleted
``non-negative'' from the final rule and replaced it with more specific
terminology. The final rule uses the term ``positive'' to refer to
results from drug and alcohol testing indicating the presences of drugs
or drug metabolites in a urine specimen or the presence of alcohol
above the cutoff levels established in this part in breath or oral
fluids specimens. The final rule uses the terms ``adulterated, dilute,
substituted, or invalid,'' as appropriate, to refer to results of
validity tests of urine specimens indicating that the specimen may not
be normal human urine. Consequently, the NRC has replaced the term
``non-negative'' in the following definitions in this section:
``confirmed test result,'' ``cutoff level,'' and ``Medical Review
Officer (MRO).''
The final rule, with respect to both the former and proposed rules,
adds the term ``positive result'' to specify what positive results mean
for drug and alcohol testing. The definition clarifies that, when the
laboratory has conducted the special analysis permitted in Sec.
26.163(a)(2), a result reported by an HHS-certified laboratory that a
specimen contains a drug or drug metabolite below the cutoff
concentration is also a positive result.
The final rule also changes the former term ``confirmed positive
test'' to ``confirmed test result'' to clarify that this term refers to
the results of the MRO's review of both drug and validity tests of
urine specimens, rather than to a type of testing. The final rule also
removes the reference to testing of blood specimens for alcohol that is
contained in the former definition of ``confirmed positive test'' from
the definition of ``confirmed test result'' because blood specimens are
no longer collected at the donor's request for confirmatory alcohol
testing, as discussed with respect to Sec. 26.83(a). With respect to
the proposed rule, the final rule specifies that a confirmed test
result demonstrates that an individual has used drugs ``and/or''
alcohol. The NRC has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of this
rulemaking, as it relates to improving clarity in the language of the
final rule.
The final rule adds several terms to refer to urine specimens that
have characteristics that are inconsistent with those expected of
normal human urine, as identified through validity testing. The terms
include ``adulterated specimen,'' ``dilute specimen,'' ``substituted
specimen,'' and ``invalid result.'' The final rule also adds the term
``oxidizing adulterant'' to refer to one class of substances that may
be used to adulterate urine specimens. These new terms and definitions
have been adapted from the HHS Guidelines.
With respect to the proposed rule, the final rule adds the term
``questionable validity'' to mean the results of validity screening or
initial validity tests at a licensee testing facility indicating that a
urine specimen may be adulterated, substituted, dilute, or invalid. The
NRC has added this term based on the consideration identified by a
commenter that licensee testing facilities may not be able to determine
whether a specimen is substituted, dilute, or meets some of the invalid
criteria because they are not required to test for specific gravity of
a specimen. This term replaces the term ``suspect specimens'' in the
former rule. Therefore, the NRC has made this change to improve clarity
in the language of the rule, consistent with Goal 6 of this rulemaking.
The final rule also adds several terms that are associated with new
requirements for maintaining quality control of urine specimen validity
and drug testing, such as the term ``quality control sample.'' The
final rule also adds definitions of the terms ``calibrator,''
``control,'' and ``standard'' to distinguish among the types of quality
control samples that are associated with urine specimen testing in
Subparts F [Licensee Testing Facilities] and G [Laboratories Certified
by the Department of Health and Human Services] of the final rule.
The final rule changes certain terms that describe drug and alcohol
tests to reflect the addition of urine specimen validity testing
requirements. The changes include replacing the term ``initial or
screening test'' with more specific terms to distinguish between drug
testing and testing for urine specimen validity. The NRC has added the
terms ``validity screening test,'' ``initial drug test,'' and ``initial
validity test'' to refer to the first tests of a urine specimen that
are performed to determine whether a urine specimen is free of drugs
and drug metabolites and has the expected characteristics of normal
urine, or whether further testing of the specimen is required. The
final rule modifies the proposed definition of ``validity screening
test'' to clarify that both non-instrumented tests, in which the
endpoint result is obtained by visual evaluation, and instrumented
(machine read) tests are acceptable methods to determine the need for
initial validity testing of urine specimen. The NRC has made these
changes to improve clarity in the language of the rule, consistent with
Goal 6 of this rulemaking.
The final rule also modifies the definition of ``initial or
screening test'' in the former rule to eliminate the requirement that
the test must be performed using immunoassay techniques because the NRC
addresses that requirement in other sections of the rule. The final
rule replaces the general term ``confirmatory test'' in the former rule
with the more specific terms, ``confirmatory drug or alcohol test'' and
``confirmatory validity test.'' In addition, the definitions of these
terms in the final rule do not include requirements for the methods to
be used in performing confirmatory tests because these requirements are
addressed in other sections of the rule. Therefore, the NRC has removed
the requirement that confirmatory drug testing be performed using gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) testing from the definition.
The final rule also eliminates the reference to GC/MS testing of blood
samples for confirmatory alcohol testing in the definition of
``confirmatory drug or alcohol test'' because the final rule does not
allow donors the option to provide a blood sample for alcohol
confirmatory testing, as discussed with respect to Sec. 26.83(a).
[[Page 17006]]
The final rule also adds two terms that refer to testing for very
low levels of drugs, drug metabolites, or adulterants in a urine
specimen, ``limit of detection (LOD)'' and ``limit of quantitation
(LOQ).'' The NRC has adapted the definitions of these terms from the
HHS Guidelines.
In addition, the final rule modifies the definitions of two terms
in the former and proposed rules to be consistent with the new drug and
alcohol testing terminology that is used throughout the rule. The final
rule amends the definition of ``cutoff level'' in the former rule to
clarify that the term is also applicable to the interpretation of
results from specimen validity testing. The final rule further modifies
this definition to refer to test results as ``positive,'' ``of
questionable validity,'' and ``adulterated, substituted, dilute, or
invalid'' to account for validity tests results from a licensee testing
facility. The final rule amends the definition of ``Medical Review
Officer (MRO)'' to refer to a ``drug and validity'' test result, rather
than a ``positive'' test result, to clarify that the MRO reviews
validity test results in addition to drug test results.
The rule also adds six terms that are related to the requirements
contained in Subpart C. The term ``potentially disqualifying FFD
information'' refers to the types of information that licensees and
other entities who are subject to the rule consider when deciding
whether to grant or maintain an individual's authorization to have the
types of access or perform the duties that are listed in Sec. 26.4.
The final rule also adds definitions for four terms that are used
within the definition of ``potentially disqualifying FFD information,''
including ``substance abuse,'' ``legal action,'' ``employment action,''
and ``reviewing official.'' The NRC has also added the term ``best
effort'' to refer to the actions that a licensee or other entity who is
subject to the rule must take to obtain the information that is
necessary to complete a suitable inquiry and employment history check,
as discussed with respect to Sec. 26.63(a).
The final rule, with respect to the proposed rule, also adds a
definition of the term ``authorization'' in response to public comment.
The final rule uses the term, ``authorization,'' to refer to an
individual's status as having been determined by a licensee or other
entity to be eligible to perform the duties or have the types of access
listed in Sec. 26.4(a) through (e), and at the licensee's or other
entity's discretion, Sec. 26.4(f) and (g) of the final rule. The
agency selected this term to differentiate ``authorization'' under Part
26 from the terms, ``unescorted access authorization'' and ``unescorted
access,'' that are used by nuclear power plant licensees to refer to
individuals who are subject to both Part 26 and related access
authorization requirements under 10 CFR 73.56 [Personnel access
authorization requirements for nuclear power plants]. The NRC created a
new term because some categories of individuals who are subject to Part
26 are not required to meet the additional requirements of 10 CFR
73.56. For example, the NRC has not promulgated access authorization
requirements in Sec. 73.56 for FFD program personnel. Therefore, the
final rule uses the term ``authorization'' to refer to the
determination that these categories of individuals may perform the
duties or have the types of access specified in Sec. 26.4 to
distinguish the requirements in this part from the additional
requirements that a licensee or other entity must meet in order to
grant individual ``unescorted access authorization'' or ``unescorted
access'' to nuclear power plant protected areas.
The final rule adds a definition of ``maintenance'' to clarify the
scope of duties described as maintenance in Sec. 26.4(a)(4) of the
final rule. The definition also distinguishes duties performed by
individuals covered by Sec. 26.4(a)(4) from duties performed by
individuals that are subject to different work hour limits, such as the
duties described in Sec. 26.4(a)(1) through (3). Specifically, the
definition clarifies that Sec. 26.205(a) requires that individuals
identified in Sec. 26.4(a)(4) (i.e., individuals who are maintaining
or providing onsite direction for the maintenance of systems and
components that ``a risk informed evaluation process has shown to be
significant to public health and safety'') must be subject to the work
hour requirements. These requirements apply to those individuals who
perform the following maintenance activities within the licensee's
owner-controlled area: modification, surveillance, post-maintenance
testing, and corrective and preventive maintenance. This definition is
similar to the language used in GL 83-14, ``Definition of `Key
Maintenance Personnel,' (Clarification of Generic Letter 82-12)'' and
10 CFR 50.65, ``Requirements for Monitoring the Effectiveness of
Maintenance at Nuclear Power Plants.'' The definition of
``maintenance'' in Sec. 26.5 of the final rule excludes the term
``calibration,'' found in GL 83-14, because the NRC considers
``calibration'' to be part of ``preventive maintenance'' and,
therefore, within the definition of ``maintenance.''
The final rule also adds several terms that are necessary to
implement the requirements of Subpart I. These terms include
``fatigue,'' ``acute fatigue,'' and ``cumulative fatigue,'' which refer
to the degradation in an individual's cognitive (mental) and motor
(physical) functioning resulting from inadequate rest within the past
24 hours or over successive days and weeks, respectively. The rule also
uses the term ``alertness'' to refer to an individual's ability to
remain awake and sustain attention, which is adversely affected by
fatigue. The new term ``circadian variation in alertness and
performance'' defines a factor that licensees would consider when
conducting a fatigue assessment under Sec. 26.211 [Fatigue
assessments]. The final rule also adds the term ``increased threat
condition'' to refer to circumstances in which the rule provides
licensees with some flexibility in implementing the work hour controls
of Sec. 26.205. With respect to the proposed rule, the final rule
modifies the term ``increased threat condition'' to clarify that any
increase in the protective measure level is relative to the lowest
protective measure applicable to the site during the previous 60 days.
The final rule, with respect to the proposed rule, adds a
definition of ``shift cycle'' to mean a series of consecutive work
shifts and days off that is planned by the licensee or other entity to
repeat regularly, thereby constituting a continuous shift schedule.
Similarly, the final rule adds ``8-hour shift schedule,'' ``10-hour
shift schedule,'' and ``12-hour shift schedule'' to define these
schedules in terms of allowable hours of a workday averaged over a
shift cycle.
Also, the NRC has added the term ``unit outage'' to the final rule
to clarify that the specific reactor unit has to be disconnected from
the electrical grid to be declared in an outage. This term was added in
response to stakeholder comment raised at a public meeting on whether,
for purposes of implementing the work hour controls, a unit was
considered to be in an outage if reactor power was reduced for repair
or maintenance of a system or component, but the reactor was not
shutdown. Consequently, the NRC defined unit outage as the reactor
being disconnected from the electrical grid. This definition provides a
clearly identifiable plant state for applying the work hour controls in
Sec. 26.205(d)(4) and (d)(5).
The term ``directing'' clarifies new requirements for MRO staff
under Sec. 26.183(d) and the scope of individuals who would be subject
to work hour controls in Sec. 26.205. The NRC has
[[Page 17007]]
revised this definition in response to public comment regarding the
lack of clarity of the term ``directing'' as used in Subpart I in the
proposed rule and the scope of personnel that should be subject to work
hour controls. Specific comments included remarks regarding the scope
of engineering functions that should or should not be subject to work
hour controls. The revised definition in the final rule clarifies the
NRC's expectations that a limited scope of personnel providing
technical input would be subject to the requirements of Sec. 26.205.
The definition explicitly states the criteria that the term
``directing'' refers to an individual who is ``directly involved in the
execution of the work activity'' or ``is ultimately responsible for the
correct performance of that work activity'' as opposed to, for example,
the planning, development or scheduling of the activity, and that the
technical input does not receive ``subsequent technical review.'' The
NRC believes that, in the context of Subpart I, the revised definition
more clearly focuses on activities that have the potential to
substantively and immediately affect safety. These changes are
consistent with the changes that the NRC has made to the final rule in
Subpart I and meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking as it relates to improving
clarity in the language of the rule.
Similarly, with respect to the proposed rule, the NRC has added the
term ``supervises or manages'' to the final rule. The definition of
``supervises or manages'' explicitly states the criteria that the term
refers to an individual who is ``not directly involved in the execution
of the work activity,'' but who either makes technical decisions
without technical review, or is ``ultimately responsible for the
correct performance of that work activity,'' as opposed to, for
example, the planning, development or scheduling of the activity, and
that the technical input does not receive ``subsequent technical
review.'' This definition is intended to clearly focus on activities
that have the potential to substantively and immediately affect safety.
These changes are consistent with the changes that the NRC has made to
the final rule in Subpart I and meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking as it
relates to improving clarity in the language of the rule.
The final rule, with respect to the proposed rule, also adds
several terms that are necessary to interpret and implement the
requirements in Subpart K. The final rule includes definitions of
``constructing or construction activities,'' ``safety-related SSCs,''
and ``security-related SSCs.'' The NRC has added these definitions in
response to public comments that recommended that the NRC reconsider
the proposed requirements for licensees or other entities who will
build new nuclear power plants. The NRC defined these terms to clarify
the point in the construction process at which an FFD program for
construction is required, the physical location where the FFD program
for construction must be implemented, and to specify the individuals
who are subject to an FFD program for construction in terms of the
duties they will perform.
The former rule in Sec. 26.2(c) imposed FFD requirements on
construction permit holders ``with a plant under active construction''
but did not define that term. The proposed rule in Sec. 26.3(e) would
have required an FFD program for construction following NRC
authorization to construct. However, the NRC recognizes that there may
be a period of time that elapses between the authorization to construct
and the commencement of specific construction activities that have the
potential to affect public health and safety and the common defense and
security when the nuclear power plant begins operations. Therefore, the
NRC has added a definition of ``constructing and construction
activities'' to clarify that an FFD program for construction is not
required until a licensee or other entity begins ``fabricating,
erecting, integrating, and testing safety- and security-related SSCs,
and the installation of their foundations, including the placement of
concrete.''
In addition, this definition specifies that the FFD program for
construction applies only to construction activities that are performed
at the location where the new plant will be constructed and operated.
The NRC added this phrase to the definition of construction activities
to clarify that any fabrication, integration, or testing of safety- or
security-related SSCs that is not performed within or near the
licensee's or other entity's owner-controlled area in which the new
plant will be operated would not be subject to Subpart K. For example,
fabricating, integrating, and testing safety- or security-related SSCs
at a vendor's or manufacturer's facility that is located in another
city or state or outside of the U.S. would not be subject to Subpart K,
whereas producing the concrete to be used for the foundation of the
reactor building in a facility located on the site where the nuclear
power plant will be constructed and operated would be subject to
Subpart K (although the construction of the cement mixing facility
would not). The NRC anticipates that the focus of the Subpart K program
on construction activities involving safety- and security-related SSCs
at the location where the new plant will be constructed and operated
will lead licensees and other entities to ensure that the program
covers all those individuals who perform construction activities within
the footprint of the new power reactor (e.g., the exterior boundary of
the reactor building once it is completed) as well as the nearby areas
where safety- and security-related SSCs will be installed and operated
when the plant begins operations.
The former rule and the proposed rule also did not specify the
individuals who would be subject to an FFD program for construction.
The NRC recognizes that there will be other construction work performed
at the location where a new plant will be constructed and operated that
will not have the potential to affect public health and safety and the
common defense and security when the nuclear power plant begins
operations, such as constructing a building that will be used only for
training or administration purposes. The NRC does not intend that
individuals who are performing these other construction activities must
be subject to the FFD program. Therefore, the final rule also includes
definitions of safety- and security-related SSCs to clarify that only
those individuals who are constructing (i.e., fabricating, erecting,
integrating, testing, and installing foundations of) these specific
SSCs must be subject to a Subpart K program. Thus, as one example of a
safety-related SSC, the rule requires individuals who are constructing
the containment structure that surrounds the reactor to be subject to
an FFD program because the containment is relied on to mitigate the
consequences of accidents that could result in potential offsite
exposure. Similarly, individuals who are constructing security-related
SSCs, such as the central and secondary alarm stations, physical
barriers, communications systems, guard towers, surveillance and
detection systems, or installing locks and illumination systems, that
will be necessary to implement the physical security and safeguards
contingency plans that are required under 10 CFR Part 73 also are
subject to an FFD program for construction.
The development of the revised requirements contained in Subpart K
(described in Sections V and VI of this document) compelled the NRC to
define these terms in the final rule. Adding definitions of these terms
satisfies Goal 6 of this rulemaking as it relates to improving clarity
in the language of the rule.
[[Page 17008]]
The final rule also adds many terms related to other revisions to
the former rule. Specifically, the final rule adds ``analytical run''
for use in establishing amended performance testing requirements for
licensee testing facilities in Sec. 26.137 [Quality assurance and
quality control]. For consistency with the use of the term in the
related regulations of other Federal agencies, the term ``donor''
replaces the former terms that are used to refer to an individual from
whom a specimen is collected for drug or alcohol testing. The new term
``nominal'' refers to the leeway in the time periods within which
certain requirements must be met, such as the requirement for annual
FFD refresher training in Sec. 26.29(c)(2). The term ``other entity''
refers to organizations who are subject to Part 26, but who are not
licensed by the NRC, including, but not limited to, the organizations
who hold the NRC certificates or permits listed in Sec. 26.3. The
terms ``formula quantity'' and ``strategic special nuclear material''
(SSNM) have been defined consistently with the definitions of the same
terms in 10 CFR 70.4. The term ``subversion and subvert the testing
process'' clarifies the language of provisions related to urine
specimen validity testing, as discussed with respect to Sec.
26.31(d)(3)(i), and sanctions in Sec. 26.75(b) that are imposed on
individuals who are subject to Part 26.
Section 26.5 of the final rule also retains and amends a number of
other definitions formerly contained in Sec. 26.3 and Section 1.2 in
Appendix A to Part 26, as described in the following paragraphs.
The rule revises the former definition of ``aliquot'' to clarify
that an aliquot is a representative sample of a urine specimen that may
be used for testing. The amended definition is consistent with the same
definition in the HHS Guidelines.
The final rule simplifies the former definition of ``blood alcohol
concentration (BAC)'' by deleting references to the instruments that
licensees and other entities are permitted to use for alcohol testing.
The text of Sec. 26.91 [Acceptable devices for conducting initial and
confirmatory tests for alcohol and methods of use] specifies acceptable
devices for alcohol testing under the final rule.
The final rule revises the definition of ``category IA material''
to conform with the former definition contained in 10 CFR 74.4.
The final rule expands the definition of ``chain of custody'' to
indicate that the terms ``chain of custody'' and ``custody and
control'' are synonymous.
The NRC has modified the definition of ``collection site'' in the
final rule to include a reference to oral fluids as specimens that are
acceptable for initial alcohol testing. The basis for permitting the
use of oral fluids for initial alcohol testing is discussed in Section
VI of this document with respect to Sec. 26.83(a).
The final rule replaces the term ``collection site person'' with
the term ``collector'' to simplify the terminology used to refer to
individuals who collect specimens for testing and for consistency with
the terminology used by other Federal agencies. In addition, the
definition no longer includes the qualifications required for
collectors because they are specified in Sec. 26.85 [Collector
qualifications and responsibilities].
The final rule adds the term ``contractor/vendor (C/V),'' combining
the definitions of ``contractor'' and ``vendor'' in the former rule,
because the final rule does not distinguish between the two types of
entities.
The final rule updates the definition of ``HHS-certified
laboratory'' to reference the most recent version of the HHS Mandatory
Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs.
In addition, the final rule simplifies the definition of ``licensee
testing facility'' by eliminating the reference to collecting specimens
for alcohol testing in the former definition, because alcohol testing
typically occurs at a collection site rather than at the licensee
testing facility. Also, with respect to the proposed rule, the NRC has
clarified this definition in the final rule to be consistent with the
inclusion of specimen validity testing at licensee testing facilities.
Finally, the final rule eliminates six terms that were defined in
former Sec. 26.3 and Section 1.2 in Appendix A to Part 26.
Specifically, the rule eliminates ``followup testing,'' ``random
test,'' ``suitable inquiry,'' ``reason to believe,'' and ``split
specimen'' because the text of the rule defines them in the section
where each term is used. The rule also eliminates the term ``permanent
record book'' in former Section 1.2 in Appendix A to Part 26 because
laboratories now use other mechanisms to maintain testing records.
Therefore, this term is no longer used in the rule.
Section 26.7 Interpretations
Section 26.7 in the final rule retains former Sec. 26.4
[Interpretations] but moves the qualifying phrase, ``other than a
written interpretation by the General Counsel,'' to the end of the
sentence to improve its clarity. The NRC has made this change in
keeping with the Commission's commitment to using plain language in its
regulations and to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in
the organization and language of the final rule.
Section 26.8 Information Collection Requirements: OMB Approval
Section 26.8 in the final rule amends former Sec. 26.8
[Information collection requirements: OMB approval] to reflect the
modified sections of the final rule in which recordkeeping requirements
are incorporated.
Section 26.9 Specific Exemptions
Section 26.9 in the final rule revises former Sec. 26.6
[Exemptions] to include the citation of 10 CFR 50.12 and 70.17. The NRC
has made this change in the final rule to ensure consistency between
Part 26 and these related requirements.
Section 26.11 Communications
New Sec. 26.11 in the final rule improves consistency with similar
sections in other parts of 10 CFR and ensures that communications with
the NRC are addressed and, therefore, processed properly.
Subpart B--Program Elements
Throughout Subpart B, the final rule makes minor clarifications to
the proposed rule because of public comment, to make conforming
changes, and to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in
the organization and language of the rule.
The final rule also makes more substantive changes to the proposed
rule in this subpart because of public comment or to improve clarity in
the organization and language of the rule. The substantive changes in
this subpart can be found in Sec. Sec. 26.21; 26.27(b)(3), (c)(1),
(c)(2)(ii), (c)(3), and (c)(3)(ii); 26.29(c)(2); 26.31(d)(1)(ii),
(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(i)(A), (d)(2)(v), (d)(3)(i), and (d)(3)(iii);
26.35(b); 26.37(a), (b)(5) and (d); 26.39(c) and (e); and 26.41(a).
These changes are discussed in detail below. However, other than the
changes mentioned above, the final rule adopts the provisions of this
subpart as proposed, without change.
Section 26.21 Fitness-for-Duty Program
The final rule modifies the proposed rule's text in this section to
specify which entities and individuals are subject to the requirements
of this subpart. This section requires that the licensees and other
entities specified in Sec. 26.3(a) through (c) must establish,
implement, and maintain FFD programs that, at a minimum, comprise the
program elements contained in this subpart. This new statement serves
as
[[Page 17009]]
an introduction to the remaining text of the final rule and eliminates
the need for the phrase ``[licensees and other entities] who are
subject to this subpart'' (or a derivation of this phrase) from several
provisions in this subpart. These changes are consistent with Goal 6 of
this rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of
the rule.
The NRC has also added a sentence to this section to specify which
individuals are subject to FFD programs. The sentence in the final rule
includes cross-references to provisions in Sec. 26.4 [FFD program
applicability to categories of individuals], which eliminates the need
for the phrase ``[individuals] who are subject to this part'' (or a
derivation of this phrase) from several provisions in this subpart.
This change is consistent with Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve
clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
The third sentence of the section of the final rule is based on
former Sec. 26.23(b). This provision retains permission for licensees
and other entities to rely upon the FFD program or program elements of
a C/V to meet the requirements of this part, if the FFD program or
program element of a C/V meets the applicable requirements of this
part. The other requirements contained in former Sec. 26.23
[Contractors and vendors] are discussed with respect to Sec. 26.23
[Performance objectives].
Section 26.23 Performance Objectives
Section 26.23 amends former Sec. 26.10 [General performance
objectives] as described in the following paragraphs.
The final rule divides the performance objectives contained in
Sec. 26.10(a) into two provisions (Sec. 26.23(a) and (b),
respectively) to clarify that the performance objective of assuring
that personnel are trustworthy and reliable is separate and distinct
from the performance objective of assuring that personnel are fit for
duty.
Section 26.23(a) of the final rule requires that FFD programs
provide reasonable assurance that persons who are subject to this part
are trustworthy and reliable as demonstrated by the avoidance of
substance abuse and the adverse behaviors that accompany it. The NRC
has placed an increased emphasis on the trustworthiness and reliability
of individuals who have access to certain types of sensitive
information, certain types of radiological materials, and protected
areas in nuclear power plants since September 11, 2001. These are the
same individuals who are subject to the final rule. Because these
individuals have unimpeded access to sensitive information and safety
equipment and systems, their trustworthiness and reliability are
essential. This level of emphasis is necessary to reduce the risk of an
insider threat, maintain public health and safety, and provide for the
common defense and security in the post-September 11, 2001, threat
environment. Substance abuse by these individuals presents an
unacceptable risk to public health and safety and the common defense
and security in several ways.
First, by increasing an individual's vulnerability to coercion,
substance abuse increases the likelihood that such individuals may pose
an insider threat. Under 10 CFR 73.1 [Purpose and scope], a passive
insider is defined as an individual who obtains or attempts to obtain
safeguards or other relevant information, such as a nuclear power
plant's physical configuration and design, and who does not have a
functional or operational need to know this information. Section 73.1
defines an active insider as a knowledgeable individual who, while
within the protected area of a nuclear power plant in an unescorted
status, takes direct action to facilitate entrance and exit, disable
alarms and communications, and/or participates in a violent attack. An
individual who uses illegal drugs may be coerced into cooperating,
actively or passively, with a terrorist in an attempt to commit
radiological sabotage if, for example, the terrorist were to threaten
the individual with revealing his or her illegal drug use or was
somehow able to withhold drugs from an individual who is addicted.
Second, an individual's judgment and self-control are impaired
while an individual is abusing drugs or alcohol. When an individual is
intoxicated from abusing any of the substances for which testing is
conducted under Part 26, including alcohol, the individual is more
likely to inadvertently reveal sensitive information that terrorists
could use in a radiological sabotage attempt than when he or she is not
intoxicated.
Third, the use of illegal drugs establishes that an individual is
willing to disobey the law, thus indicating that the individual will
disregard other rules and regulations. The use of illegal drugs raises
questions about the individual's trustworthiness and reliability in
terms of scrupulously following the regulations, procedures, and other
requirements, such as safeguards requirements, that ensure the
protection of public health and safety.
Many provisions of the former rule provided means to identify and
reduce the risks posed by any individuals whose substance abuse casts
doubt on their trustworthiness and reliability. In combination with
other measures the NRC has taken since September 11, 2001, a number of
the changes to the former rule provide further assurance that
individuals who are subject to the rule are trustworthy and reliable.
Changes to strengthen the effectiveness of the final rule in assuring
individuals' trustworthiness and reliability include, but are not
limited to, the following:
(1) Adding requirements for specimen validity testing to identify
individuals who are willing to attempt to subvert the testing process,
and may be willing to subvert other rules and regulations that are
important for public health and safety and the common defense and
security;
(2) Increasing the rigor of the evaluations that licensees and
other entities must perform before granting authorization to an
individual who has previously violated Part 26 requirements to ensure
that the individual has ceased abusing drugs or alcohol; and
(3) Imposing more stringent sanctions on individuals who violate
Part 26 requirements, including, but not limited to, permanently
denying authorization to any individual who attempts to subvert the
drug and alcohol testing process.
The NRC believes that implementation of these provisions of the
final rule, in addition to related measures the agency has taken in the
post-September 11, 2001, threat environment, provides an increased
level of requirements appropriate for the new threat environment, as
well as reasonable assurance that individuals who are subject to the
rule are trustworthy and reliable.
Section 26.23(b) of the final rule retains the performance
objective of providing reasonable assurance that personnel are fit for
duty, which appeared in former Sec. 26.10(a). The use of the term
``reasonable'' to describe the level of assurance required by the rule
reflects the NRC's awareness that many different factors may affect an
individual's fitness at any particular moment in time. Some of these
factors may be difficult for the licensee or other entity to detect and
many (such as a transitory illness) may not warrant management action
or the imposition of sanctions because they do not pose a significant
risk to public health and safety.
As mentioned above, the level of requirements associated with
achieving reasonable assurance of trustworthiness and reliability is
greater than that associated with achieving reasonable assurance that
individuals are not
[[Page 17010]]
impaired. Another example of this relates to the sanctions that the
final rule requires licensees and other entities to impose on
individuals who demonstrate questionable trustworthiness and
reliability compared to the management actions licensees are expected
to take with individuals who may be impaired. For example, if an
individual demonstrates dishonesty by attempting to bring a substitute
urine specimen to the collection site with a clear intent to subvert
the testing process or demonstrates a willingness to break the law by
possessing illegal drugs on site, the final rule (under Sec. 26.75(b)
and 26.75(c), respectively) requires the licensee or other entity to
terminate the individual's authorization. Terminating the individual's
authorization is necessary to provide reasonable assurance that the
individual could pose no further risk to public health and safety or
the common defense and security. In contrast, the final rule does not
require a licensee or other entity to terminate an individual's
authorization if he or she is mentally or physically impaired while on
duty from such transitory causes as illness or emotional stress
resulting from a family problem.
For example, an individual who arrives at work with a severe
migraine headache may suffer impairment on the job that would adversely
affect the individual's ability to perform his or her duties safely and
competently while the headache persists. The final (and former) rule
(under Sec. 26.77(b)(3) and former Sec. 26.27(b)(1), respectively)
require the licensee or other entity to take action to prevent the
individual from performing the duties that require the individual to be
subject to this part if the individual's fitness is questionable. These
actions could include, for example, assigning the individual to other
duties until medication brings the headache under control or sending
the individual home until the headache resolves. Such actions `meet the
performance objective of providing reasonable assurance that the
individual is fit when he or she resumes his or her normal duties.
However, it would be unreasonable for a licensee's FFD policy to impose
sanctions on the individual, such as terminating his or her
authorization. Sanctions could have no deterrent effect on the
recurrence of the individual's headache, which is one purpose of
including requirements for minimum sanctions in Part 26. In addition,
there would not be any continuing risk to public health and safety from
permitting the individual to resume his or her duties after the
headache is resolved.
Another difference between the performance objectives of providing
``reasonable'' assurance of trustworthiness and reliability and
``reasonable'' assurance that the individuals who are subject to the
final rule are fit for duty lies in the severity of the enforcement
actions that the NRC would be likely to take against an FFD program
that failed to meet these performance objectives. The NRC's enforcement
actions would be severe in the case of an FFD program that, for
example, granted authorization to an individual who had previously had
his or her authorization permanently denied under Sec. 26.75(b) but
would take less severe enforcement action in the case of an FFD program
that failed to remove an individual who was experiencing impairment
related to family stress from his or her duties under Sec.
26.77(b)(3).
Section 26.23(c) of the final rule retains the performance
objective in former Sec. 26.10(b) to ``provide reasonable measures for
the early detection of persons who are not fit to perform activities
within the scope of this part.'' However, the final rule replaces the
phrase ``perform activities within the scope of this part'' with the
phrase ``perform the duties that require them to be subject to the FFD
program.'' The final rule requires that certain individuals must be
subject to an FFD program based on their duties. These duties include
performing activities, such as measuring, guarding, or transporting
Category IA material. They also include having access to certain
locations, material, and sensitive information, such as nuclear power
plant protected areas, Category IA material, procedures and records for
safeguarding SSNM, and the drug test results of an individual before
the MRO reviews those results. Therefore, the phrase ``perform the
duties that require them to be subject to the FFD program'' is more
accurate. Replacing the former phrase with the more accurate phrase is
consistent with Goal 6 of the rulemaking to improve clarity in the
organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.23(d) of the final rule amends former Sec. 26.10(c) to
require that FFD programs must provide reasonable assurance that the
workplaces subject to this part are free from the presence and effects
of illegal drugs and alcohol. The final rule revises the former
performance objective to ``have a goal of achieving a drug-free
workplace and a workplace free of the effects of such substances'' for
several reasons. First, the terms ``drug-free'' and ``free from the
effects of such substances'' do not accurately capture the NRC's intent
with respect to this performance objective. These terms could be
misunderstood as requiring FFD programs to have the goal of preventing
any drugs and their effects from being present in the workplace, which
could include medications that individuals who are subject to the rule
may take to treat health problems. Therefore, the final rule replaces
``drug-free'' and ``free of the effects of such substances'' with the
more specific phrase ``free from the presence and effects of illegal
drugs and alcohol'' to refer to the specific substances that are
proscribed. This revision clarifies that the NRC does not intend for
FFD programs to prohibit individuals from taking the medications they
need to maintain their health or bringing those medications to the
workplace. The NRC has made this change to meet Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
The final rule also replaces the phrase ``have a goal of'' in the
former rule with the phrase ``provide reasonable assurance'' which more
accurately captures the intent of this performance objective. The NRC
has eliminated the phrase ``have a goal of'' because Sec. 26.23(d) is
a performance objective and, therefore, the phrase is unnecessary. The
NRC has made this change to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve
clarity in the organization and language of the rule without changing
the intended meaning of the performance objective.
Section 26.23(e) of the final rule adds a provision to require
licensees and other entities to provide reasonable assurance that the
effects of fatigue and degraded alertness on individuals' abilities to
safely and competently perform their duties are managed commensurate
with maintaining public health and safety. This new performance
objective, consistent with Goal 2 of this rulemaking to strengthen the
effectiveness of FFD programs at nuclear power plants in ensuring
against worker fatigue adversely affecting public health and safety and
the common defense and security by establishing clear and enforceable
requirements for the management of worker fatigue, specifies the
objective of the requirements concerning worker fatigue that the NRC
has added to the final rule. Worker fatigue cannot be measured or
controlled with precision. Also, licensees and other entities do not
have direct control over all matters that may influence worker fatigue.
Therefore, Sec. 26.23(e) establishes a ``reasonable assurance''
criterion for the performance objective. Worker fatigue
[[Page 17011]]
can result from many causes (e.g., work hours, sleep disorders, demands
outside the workplace). In addition, individuals differ in their
responses to conditions that cause fatigue. As a consequence, work-hour
limits alone do not address all causes of fatigue, nor do they prevent
fatigue related to work hours for all workers. Contemporary methods for
addressing worker fatigue (e.g., Rogers, 1996, 1997; Hartley, 1998;
Carroll, 1999) are commonly referred to as ``fatigue management''
programs and use diverse methods (e.g., training, behavioral
observation, fatigue countermeasures) in addition to work-hour controls
to prevent, detect, and mitigate fatigue. Accordingly, Sec. 26.23(e)
establishes a performance objective of reasonable assurance that the
effects of fatigue and degraded alertness on individuals' abilities to
safely and competently perform their duties are ``managed''
commensurate with maintaining public health and safety. The performance
objective permits licensees and other entities to apply risk-informed
fatigue management controls for individuals consistent with the
significance of their work activities to the protection of public
health and safety.
Section 26.25 [Reserved]
The final rule has amended and moved the requirements from proposed
Sec. 26.25 [Individuals subject to the fitness-for-duty program] to
Sec. 26.4 of the final rule. This change is discussed in detail in
this document with regard to Sec. 26.4.
Section 26.27 Written Policy And Procedures
Section 26.27 of the final rule reorganizes and amends former Sec.
26.20 [Written policy and procedures. The final rule divides into
separate paragraphs the requirements related to the FFD policy and FFD
program procedures that are intermixed within the former section. This
organizational change makes the requirements related to the FFD policy
and procedures easier to locate within this section, consistent with
Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and
language of the rule.
Section 26.27(a) of the final rule amends the first paragraph of
former Sec. 26.20. The former provision required licensees to
establish and implement written policies and procedures designed to
meet the performance objectives and specific requirements of this part
and to retain superseded copies of the policies and procedures. The
final rule replaces the term ``licensee'' in the former rule with the
phrase ``licensees and other entities'' because entities other than
licensees are subject to this requirement, as discussed with respect to
Sec. 26.3 [Scope]. The final rule adds the term ``maintain'' to the
former requirement to ``establish and implement'' written policies and
procedures to reflect the fact that licensees and other entities who
are subject to Part 26 must occasionally revise FFD program policies
and procedures to keep them current when FFD program personnel or other
aspects of the FFD program change. The final rule replaces ``specific''
with the term ``applicable'' in the final sentence because all the
requirements in Part 26 do not apply to all the licensees and other
entities who are subject to the rule, as discussed with respect to
Sec. 26.3. The final rule also eliminates ``designed to'' from this
sentence because it is unnecessary. The NRC has moved the records
retention requirements contained in the second sentence of the former
provision to Sec. 26.713(d) in Subpart N [Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements] of the final rule. Subpart N groups together the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are interspersed
throughout the former rule. The NRC has made these changes to the
organization and language of former Sec. 26.20 to meet Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
Section 26.27(b) of the final rule amends former Sec. 26.20(a).
The former provision established requirements for the written FFD
policy, and the final rule expands the list of topics that the FFD
policy must address as a result of discussions with stakeholders during
the public meetings mentioned in Section I.D. Stakeholders noted that
the list of topics in the former rule is incomplete because it does not
include many topics about which individuals who are subject to the
policy should be aware in order to be able to comply with the policy.
Therefore, the final rule adds topics to the policy content
requirements in former Sec. 26.20(a) to ensure that FFD policies will
be complete. The NRC has made this change to meet Goal 7 of this
rulemaking to protect the rights (including due process) of individuals
who are subject to Part 26.
Section 26.27(b) of the final rule also adds requirements for the
written FFD policy to be clear, concise, and readily available to all
individuals who are subject to the policy because neither the former
nor final rules require licensees and other entities to provide site-
specific FFD training to individuals. However, FFD policies may vary
between licensees and other entities with respect to, for example, the
sanctions that are applied for confirmed positive, adulterated, or
substituted test results, the cutoff levels used in drug or alcohol
testing, or the time periods within which an individual who has been
selected for random testing must report to the collection site.
Under this final rule, the written FFD policy continues to be the
primary means by which a licensee or other entity communicates local
variations in FFD policy. In the past, however, a few individuals
challenged determinations that they had violated a licensee's FFD
policy on the basis that they were not aware of the specific provisions
of the policy to which they were subject. Therefore, the final rule
adds requirements that the FFD policy must be clear, concise, and
readily available in order to promote individuals' awareness of the
site-specific FFD policy to which they are subject. The NRC has made
this change to meet Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect the rights
(including due process) of individuals who are subject to Part 26.
The final rule also adds examples of acceptable methods to make the
written policy ``readily available'' to individuals who are subject to
the FFD policy, including, but not limited to, posting the policy in
various work areas throughout the licensee's or other entity's
facilities, providing individuals with brochures, or allowing
individuals to print the policy from a computer. The NRC has added
these examples to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in
the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.27(b)(1) amends the second sentence of former Sec.
26.20(a). Former Sec. 26.20(a) required that ``the policy must address
the use of illegal drugs and abuse of legal drugs (e.g., alcohol,
prescription and over-the-counter drugs).'' Section 26.27(b)(1) of the
final rule expands this sentence to require the FFD policy to describe
the consequences of onsite or offsite use, sale, or possession of
illegal drugs in Sec. 26.27(b)(i); the abuse of legal drugs and
alcohol in Sec. 26.27(b)(ii); and the misuse of prescription and over-
the-counter drugs in Sec. 26.27(b)(iii). The final rule replaces the
phrase ``must address'' in the former sentence with the phrase ``must
describe the consequences of.'' The updated phrase clarifies the
information that the policy must convey to ensure that individuals who
are subject to the policy are aware of the consequences of these
actions, as specified in the licensee's or other entity's FFD policy.
The NRC has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of this
[[Page 17012]]
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
The final rule adds Sec. 26.27(b)(2) that requires the FFD policy
to state the time period specified by the licensee or other entity
within which individuals must report to the collection site after being
notified that they have been selected for random testing. The provision
does not establish a time limit because there are a variety of
circumstances among the different licensees and other entities who are
subject to this rule that make it impractical to establish a universal
time limit. However, adding the requirement for the licensee's or other
entity's FFD policy to establish and convey a time limit is necessary
because some programs have not done so. As a result, circumstances have
arisen in which individuals who were selected for random testing
intentionally delayed reporting to the collection site in order to take
steps to subvert the testing process, such as obtaining an adulterant
to bring to the collection site or drinking large amounts of liquid to
be able to provide a dilute specimen. Furthermore, the longer that an
individual who has abused illegal drugs or alcohol is able to delay
providing specimens for testing, the more likely it is that the
concentrations of an illegal drug or alcohol in the individual's urine,
breath, or oral fluids will decrease because of metabolism. As a
result, the concentrations may fall below the cutoff levels for those
substances by the time the specimens are collected and the individual's
substance abuse would not be detected. Therefore, the requirement to
establish a time limit within which individuals must report for random
testing after notification meets Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs. The final rule also
requires the FFD policy to convey this time limit to ensure that
individuals are aware of it, given that a failure to appear for testing
within the prescribed time limit may lead to the imposition of
sanctions under the FFD policy. The NRC has made this change to meet
Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect the rights (including due process)
of individuals who are subject to Part 26.
Section 26.27(b)(3) adds a requirement that the FFD policy inform
individuals of the consequences of refusing to be tested and attempting
to subvert the testing process. With respect to the proposed rule, the
final rule clarifies that the written policy statement must also
describe the actions that constitute a refusal to provide a specimen
for testing. This change, in response to a public comment, clarifies
the intent of the provision, consistent with Goal 6 of the rulemaking
to improve clarity in the language and organization of the rule. This
provision ensures that persons who are subject to the rule are aware of
Sec. 26.75(b), which requires licensees and other entities to impose
the sanction of permanent denial of authorization for these actions.
Section 26.27(b)(3) protects the due process rights of individuals who
are subject to drug and alcohol testing under this part by ensuring
that they are informed, in advance, of the licensee's or other entity's
policies to which they are subject. Therefore, adding this requirement
to the final rule meets Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect the rights
(including due process) of individuals who are subject to Part 26.
Section 26.27(b)(4)(i) amends former Sec. 26.20(a)(1). Former
Sec. 26.20(a)(1) required the FFD policy to prohibit the consumption
of alcohol within an abstinence period of at least 5 hours preceding
``any scheduled working tour.'' The final rule replaces the phrase
``any scheduled working tour'' with the phrase ``the individual's
arrival at the licensee's or other entity's facility'' as a result of
stakeholder comments on the language in the former rule at the public
meetings mentioned in Section I.D. The stakeholders commented that the
former phrase lacked clarity and could be misinterpreted as meaning,
``any working tour scheduled by the licensee or other entity.'' If the
phrase was so interpreted, individuals who are subject to the rule may
believe that, if they work on a weekend or work overtime that is not
part of their normally scheduled working tour, the rule would permit
them to consume alcohol within the 5-hour period before they arrive at
work, which would be incorrect. Therefore, the revised language of the
final rule clarifies that the pre-work abstinence period applies to the
5 hours before an individual arrives at the licensee's or other
entity's facility for any purpose, except if an individual is called in
to perform an unscheduled working tour, as discussed with respect to
Sec. 26.27(c)(3). The NRC has made this final change to meet Goal 6 of
this rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of
the rule.
Section 26.27(b)(4)(ii) retains former Sec. 26.20(a)(2) without
change.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.27(b)(5) to the final rule to require
that the FFD policy inform individuals that abstinence from alcohol
during the 5 hours preceding any scheduled tour of duty may not be
sufficient to ensure that an individual is fit for duty upon reporting
to work. Some individuals who have complied with the 5-hour abstinence
requirement could have BACs above the cutoff levels specified in Sec.
26.103 [Determining a confirmed positive test result for alcohol]
preceding a scheduled tour of duty, depending on the amount of alcohol
and food that the individual consumed before the abstinence period
began, body weight, and other factors. By ensuring that individuals who
are subject to this part are aware that the required 5-hour abstinence
period may be insufficient to ensure they have a BAC below the cutoff
levels in this part when arriving at the licensee's or other entity's
facility, this provision to meet Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect
the rights (including due process) of individuals who are subject to
alcohol testing under Part 26.
Section 26.27(b)(6) amends the last sentence of former Sec.
26.20(a). That sentence required the FFD policy to address other
factors that could affect individuals' abilities to perform their
duties safely and competently, such as mental stress, fatigue, and
illness. The final rule adds a requirement for the FFD policy also to
address the use of prescription and over-the-counter medications that
could cause impairment at work. For example, some licensees or other
entities may require individuals to self-report to the FFD program
their use of any prescription medications that are labeled with a
warning indicating that use of the medication may cause impairment. The
licensee's or other entity's FFD policy may require that an individual
who is taking a medication that can cause impairment must be
temporarily reassigned to duties that the individual can perform
without posing a risk to the individual or public health and safety
while he or she is taking the medication. Therefore, the final rule
requires licensees and other entities to include such information in
the FFD policy to ensure that individuals are aware of the actions they
may be required to take when using these substances, consistent with
Goal 7 of this rulemaking with respect to protecting the rights
(including due process) of individuals who are subject to the policy.
The addition of this requirement also increases the internal
consistency of the rule because other portions of the final rule
establish requirements related to using prescription and over-the-
counter medications. For example, Sec. 26.29(a)(6) requires FFD
training to address use of prescription and over-the-counter
medication. Also, Sec. 26.185(j)(2) requires the MRO to determine
whether a positive confirmatory drug test result that results from
using a prescription or over-the-counter medication represents
[[Page 17013]]
substance abuse. Therefore, the requirement for the FFD policy to
address the use of prescription and over-the-counter medications that
could cause impairment at work also meets Goal 6 of this rulemaking to
improve clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.27(b)(7) amends former Sec. 26.20(b). Former Sec.
26.20(b) required the FFD policy to describe programs that are
available to individuals desiring assistance in dealing with drug,
alcohol, or other problems that may adversely affect their performance
of their duties. Section 26.27(b)(7) of the final rule adds fatigue as
one of the problems for which individuals may be seeking assistance
because sleep disorders (e.g., sleep apnea, insomnia, restless leg
syndrome) can substantially affect individuals' abilities to obtain
sufficient quality sleep. Poor quality sleep causes fatigue that may
degrade an individual's ability to safely and competently perform his
or her duties. Sleep disorders affect a sizeable portion of the U.S.
work force. According to polls conducted by NSF, about two-thirds of
U.S. adults report experiencing one or more symptoms associated with
insomnia, sleep apnea, or restless leg syndrome at least a few nights a
week (National Sleep Foundation, 2003) and nearly one out of five (19
percent) report making occasional or frequent errors because of
sleepiness (National Sleep Foundation, 2000). Section 26.27(b)(7)
ensures that individuals are aware of the services that are available
for diagnosing and treating sleep disorders that can adversely affect
their job performance. The NRC has made this change to meet Goal 2 of
this rulemaking to strengthen the effectiveness of FFD programs at
nuclear power plants by reducing the potential for worker fatigue to
adversely affect public health and safety and the common defense and
security, through establishing clear and more readily enforceable
requirements concerning the management of worker fatigue. In addition,
the final rule replaces the phrase ``adversely affect the performance
of activities within the scope of this part'' in the former provision
with the phrase ``could adversely affect an individual's ability to
safely and competently perform the duties that require an individual to
be subject to this part'' for the reasons discussed with respect to
Sec. 26.23(c).
Section 26.27(b)(8) retains the requirement in former Sec.
26.20(d) that the FFD policy must specify the consequences of violating
the policy. The NRC has moved the former requirements that were related
to the procedures that the licensee or other entity would implement if
an individual violates the FFD policy to Sec. 26.27(c) of the final
rule, which addresses FFD program procedures, for organizational
clarity.
Section 26.27(b)(9) adds a requirement that licensees' and other
entities' FFD policies must describe the individual's responsibility to
report legal actions, as defined in Sec. 26.5 [Definitions]. The new
requirement to report legal actions is discussed with respect to Sec.
26.61 [Self-disclosure and employment history]. The final rule requires
the FFD policy to address the reporting of legal actions to ensure that
individuals are aware of this and are not at risk of sanctions for
failing to report any legal actions. Thus, the NRC has made this change
to meet Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect the rights (including due
process) of individuals who are subject to the policy.
Section 26.27(b)(10) adds a requirement for the FFD policy to
describe the responsibilities of managers, supervisors, and escorts to
report FFD concerns. The former rule implied that managers and
supervisors have the responsibility to report FFD concerns in Sec.
26.22(a)(5), which required managers and supervisors to be trained in
procedures ``for initiating appropriate corrective action.'' Similarly,
the last phrase of former Sec. 26.22(b) required that escorts be
trained in procedures ``for reporting problems to supervisory or
security personnel'' and, therefore, also implied that escorts have a
reporting responsibility. However, the former rule did not explicitly
state that the FFD policy must convey this requirement. Therefore, the
final rule adds Sec. 26.27(b)(10) to enhance the internal consistency
of the rule. The NRC has made this change to meet Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
Section 26.27(b)(11) adds a requirement for the FFD policy to state
that individuals who are subject to the rule must report FFD concerns,
consistent with Sec. 26.33 [Behavioral observation]. Section 26.33
requires individuals who are subject to the rule to perform behavioral
observation and to report an FFD concern if they detect behaviors that
may indicate possible use, sale, or possession of illegal drugs; use or
possession of alcohol on site or while on duty; or impairment from
fatigue or any cause that, if left unattended, may constitute a risk to
the health and safety of the public. Section 26.29 [Training] requires
individuals to be trained in behavioral observation. The agency has
added these requirements to enhance the effectiveness of Part 26 by
ensuring the early detection of individuals who are not fit to perform
the duties that require them to be subject to this part. This is one of
the performance objectives that FFD programs must meet, as discussed
with respect to Sec. 26.23(c). This provision also improves
consistency between FFD requirements and access authorization
requirements established in 10 CFR 73.56 [Personnel access
authorization requirements for nuclear power plants] as supplemented by
orders to nuclear power plant licensees dated January 7, 2003, as
discussed in Section IV.B of this document. The specific requirement in
Sec. 26.27(b)(11) for licensees' and other entities' FFD policies to
state that individuals must report FFD concerns is necessary to ensure
that individuals are aware of their responsibility to report concerns
(and that sanctions may be imposed if they do not) to meet Goal 7 of
this rulemaking to protect the rights (including due process) of
individuals who are subject to the policy.
Section 26.27(c) of the final rule combines the requirements
related to procedures contained in former Sec. 26.20(c) through (e),
and adds other requirements, as described in the following paragraphs.
Section 26.27(c)(1) retains the requirements in former Sec.
26.20(c). The NRC has replaced the phrase in the proposed rule
``privacy and due process rights of an individual who provides a
specimen'' with the phrase ``privacy and other rights (including due
process) of an individual who provides a specimen'' in the final rule.
The NRC has made this change in response to a public comment that
stated the proposed phrase may be interpreted to limit individuals'
protected rights to due process. This phrase clarifies the requirement
for ``protecting the employee'' contained in former Sec. 26.20(c). For
example, individuals' privacy rights under the final rule include, but
are not limited to, requirements for the protection of personal
information that is collected about the individual and individual
privacy during specimen collections. Other examples of individuals'
rights under the final rule include, but are not limited to, the right
to an objective and impartial review of a determination that the
individual has violated the FFD policy, the right to advance knowledge
of rule provisions and FFD policy requirements that affect the
individual, and the right to request testing of a split specimen or
retesting an aliquot of a single specimen, if the individual questions
a confirmed positive, adulterated, or substituted test result.
[[Page 17014]]
The NRC has made this change to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to
improve clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.27(c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii) divides former Sec. 26.20(d)
into separate paragraphs that address different topics. Section
26.27(c)(2)(i) retains the former requirement that licensees and other
entities must have procedures that specify the immediate and followup
actions that must be taken if an individual is determined to have been
involved in the use, sale, or possession of illegal drugs. Like the
former provision, Sec. 26.27(c)(2)(ii) requires licensees' and other
entities' procedures to specify the immediate and followup actions to
be taken if an individual is determined to have consumed alcohol to
excess before the mandatory prework abstinence period, or while on
duty, as determined by a test that measures BAC. With respect to the
proposed rule, the final rule also adds the phrase ``or consumed any
alcohol during the mandatory prework abstinence period'' to clarify the
prohibition against any alcohol consumption, not only excess
consumption, during the pre-work abstinence period. The NRC has made
these changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in
the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.27(c)(2)(iii) and (c)(2)(iv) adds requirements that
licensees and other entities must prepare written procedures for
implementing the FFD program that describe immediate and followup
actions for attempted subversion of the testing process. Section
26.27(c)(2)(iii) requires procedures to specify immediate and followup
actions if an individual has attempted to subvert the testing process
by adulterating, substituting, or diluting specimens (in vivo or in
vitro), or by any other means. Section 26.27(c)(2)(iv) requires
procedures to address the actions to be taken if an individual has
refused to provide a specimen for testing. The final rule adds these
provisions for consistency with Sec. 26.75(b). Section 26.75(b)
requires licensees and other entities to terminate an individual's
authorization and, thereafter, permanently deny authorization to any
individual who has committed or attempted any act to subvert the
testing process, including refusing to provide a specimen and providing
or attempting to provide a substituted or adulterated specimen for any
test required under Sec. 26.31(c). Adding the requirements for
procedures to address these circumstances meets Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
Section 26.27(c)(2)(v) adds a requirement that the written
procedures must describe immediate and followup actions for individuals
who have had drug- or alcohol-related legal actions taken against them,
as defined in Sec. 26.5. This provision supports related provisions in
Sec. 26.69(d). Section 26.69(d), in general, requires licensees and
other entities to take certain steps if an individual has had drug- or
alcohol-related legal actions taken against them while they are
maintaining authorization to perform the duties that require them to be
subject to this part. Adding the requirement for procedures to address
these circumstances ensures the internal consistency of the final rule
and meets Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the
organization and language of the rule.
The NRC has reorganized Sec. 26.27(c)(3) of the final rule, with
respect to the proposed rule, to clarify which provisions apply to
``emergencies'' and which apply to ``unscheduled working tours.'' The
NRC received a public comment that suggested the term ``emergency'' may
be too limiting. However, the NRC believes the term ``emergency''
accurately reflects NRC's intent and has retained this term in the
final rule. Section 26.27(c)(3) amends former Sec. 26.20(e). The
provision requires licensees and other entities to have procedures to
describe the process that the licensee or other entity will use to
ensure that individuals who are called in to perform an unscheduled
working tour are fit for duty.
The final rule retains and modifies the other requirements of
former Sec. 26.20(e), as described in the following paragraphs.
Section 26.27(c)(3)(i) retains former Sec. 26.20(e)(1). The
provision requires the individual who is called in to state whether the
individual considers himself or herself fit for duty and whether he or
she has consumed alcohol within the pre-duty abstinence period stated
in the FFD policy. The final rule adds the requirement to state whether
he or she considers himself or herself to be fit for duty, in addition
to stating whether he or she has consumed alcohol because the NRC
recognizes that conditions other than the consumption of alcohol may
cause an individual to be unable to safely and competently perform
duties, including, but not limited to, fatigue (as discussed with
respect to Subpart I [Managing Fatigue]). The NRC received a comment
suggesting that individuals who are called in should only be required
to report if they are not fit for duty or have consumed alcohol during
the pre-duty abstinence period. The NRC believes that this alternative
would be less protective of public health and safety, as an affirmative
obligation to provide a statement may dissuade individuals who would be
tempted to remain silent. Requiring individuals to report other
conditions that may cause them to be impaired when called in under
Sec. 26.27(c)(3)(i), strengthens the effectiveness of FFD programs by
providing the licensee or other entity with more complete information
about the individual's condition to determine whether there is a need
to establish controls and conditions under which the individual may
safely perform work, as required under Sec. 26.27(c)(3)(iii).
Therefore, the NRC has adopted the proposed provision as final. The NRC
has made these changes to meet Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs.
Section 26.27(c)(3)(ii) specifies the procedures to follow if the
individual has consumed alcohol in the pre-duty abstinence period and
is called in for an unscheduled working tour, including an unscheduled
working tour to respond to an emergency. Section 26.27(c)(3)(ii)(A)
retains former Sec. 26.20(e)(2). The provision requires that an
individual who reports that he or she has used alcohol and is called in
must be subject to a determination of fitness by breath analysis. The
NRC has added a new Sec. 26.27(c)(3)(ii)(B) to the final rule to
permit the licensee or other entity to assign the individual to duties
that require him or her to be subject to this part, if the results of
the determination of fitness indicate that the individual is fit to
safely and competently perform his or her duties. The NRC has also
added a new Sec. 26.27(c)(3)(ii)(C) to the final rule to prohibit the
licensee or other entity from assigning the individual to duties that
require him or her to be subject to this part, if the individual is not
required to respond to an emergency and the results of the
determination of fitness indicate that the individual may be impaired.
The NRC has also added Sec. 26.27(c)(3)(ii)(D) that retains a portion
of former Sec. 26.20(e)(3). The provision requires the procedures to
state that consumption of alcohol during the 5-hour abstinence period
required in paragraph (b)(4)(i) of this section may not by itself
preclude a licensee or other entity from using individuals who are
needed to respond to an emergency. This provision also retains and
modifies a portion of former Sec. 26.20(c)(3). It states that if the
determination of fitness indicates that an individual who has been
called in for an unscheduled working tour to
[[Continued on page 17015]]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
]
[[pp. 17015-17064]] Fitness for Duty Programs
[[Continued from page 17014]]
[[Page 17015]]
respond to an emergency may be impaired, the procedure must require the
establishment of controls and conditions under which the individual who
has been called in can perform work if necessary.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.27(c)(3)(ii)(E) to the final rule to
clarify that licensees and other entities may not impose sanctions if
an individual is called in for an unscheduled working tour for having
consumed alcohol during the preduty abstinence period specified in the
FFD policy. This change ensures that, if an individual who is called in
unexpectedly has a confirmed positive test result for alcohol, he or
she would not be subject to the sanctions that are otherwise required
under this part for a confirmed positive alcohol test result. The NRC
believes that sanctions for the consumption of alcohol in these
circumstances would be inappropriate because the individual would have
been unaware that he or she would be called in to work. The revision is
also consistent with the original intent of the rule. Therefore, the
NRC has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve
clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.27(c)(4) adds a requirement that FFD procedures must
describe the process to be followed when another individual's behavior
raises an FFD concern and the process for reporting the concern. As
discussed with respect to Sec. 26.27(b)(11), this provision is
consistent with Sec. 26.33, which establishes a requirement that all
individuals must perform behavioral observation and report any FFD
concerns. This provision is also consistent with Sec. 26.29, which
requires individuals to be trained to perform behavioral observation.
The NRC has added this requirement to meet Goal 3 of this rulemaking to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs and Goal 4 to
improve consistency between FFD requirements and access authorization
requirements established in 10 CFR 73.56, as supplemented by orders to
nuclear power plant licensees dated January 7, 2003.
Section 26.27(d) of the final rule retains the requirements of
former Sec. 26.20(f) without changes.
Section 26.29 Training
Section 26.29 of the final rule combines and amends former Sec.
26.21 [Policy communications and awareness training] and Sec. 26.22
[Training of supervisors and escorts]. This section clarifies that all
individuals subject to this subpart must receive the same scope of
training, to include, for example, behavioral observation, whereas
former Sec. 26.22 required that only supervisors and escorts must
receive behavioral observation training. Increasing the number of
individuals who are trained in behavioral observation enhances the
effectiveness of FFD programs by increasing the likelihood of detecting
potential impairment, consistent with Goal 3 of this rulemaking.
Section 26.29(a) of the final rule combines the training topics
listed in former Sec. Sec. 26.21(a)(1) through (a)(5), 26.22(a)(1)
through (a)(5), and 26.22(b). The agency has rewritten the required
training topics in terms of knowledge and abilities (KAs) to be
consistent with terminology used by licensees and other entities in
other required training programs. This change meets Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
Section 26.29(a)(1) combines former Sec. 26.21(a)(1) with the
latter portion of former Sec. 26.21(a)(5). Consistent with the former
training requirements, the provision requires licensees and other
entities to ensure that individuals who are subject to this subpart
have knowledge of the FFD policy and procedures that apply to them, the
methods used to implement the policy and procedures, and the
consequences of violating the policy and procedures.
Section 26.29(a)(2) retains the requirement in former Sec.
26.22(a)(1) that licensees and other entities must ensure that
individuals understand their roles and responsibilities under the FFD
program, such as avoiding substance abuse and reporting for testing
within the time limit specified in FFD program procedures.
Section 26.29(a)(3) amends the terminology used in former Sec.
26.22(a)(2). Former Sec. 26.22(a)(2) required FFD training to address
the roles and responsibilities of others, such as the personnel,
medical, and EAP staffs. The final rule replaces the references to the
``personnel'' function and ``medical'' staff in former Sec.
26.22(a)(2) with ``human resources'' and ``FFD'' staff, respectively.
The final rule also moves the reference to the MRO into this section
from former Sec. 26.21(a)(3). These updates to the terminology in this
section are consistent with other terms used throughout the final rule
to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the
organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.29(a)(4) and (a)(5) amends former Sec. 26.21(a)(4) and
(a)(2), respectively, by changing some of the language used in the
former provisions. Former Sec. 26.21(a)(4) required FFD training to
inform individuals who are subject to the rule of any EAPs that are
available to them. The final rule eliminates the reference to EAPs
``provided by the licensee'' in the former provision and amends it as
``EAP services available to the individual'' because other entities are
also subject to this requirement under the final rule. Section
26.29(a)(5) amends former Sec. 26.21(a)(2) by replacing the phrase
``abuse of drugs and misuse of alcohol'' with ``abuse of illegal and
legal drugs and alcohol'' for greater accuracy in describing the
required knowledge. The NRC has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of
this rulemaking to improve clarity in the language of the rule.
Section 26.29(a)(6) retains the portion of former Sec. 26.21(a)(3)
that required licensees to ensure that individuals understand the
effects of prescription and over-the-counter drugs and dietary factors
on job performance. The final rule adds a requirement for FFD training
to address the effects of alcohol, illness, mental stress, and fatigue
on job performance, in order to ensure that individuals understand the
bases for the licensee's or other entity's FFD policy regarding these
conditions. The NRC has moved the requirement in the last sentence of
former Sec. 26.20(a) to Sec. 26.27(b)(6) of the final rule because
that section addresses FFD policy requirements. The NRC has made these
changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the
organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.29(a)(7) retains the portion of former Sec. 26.21(a)(3)
that required licensees and other entities to ensure that individuals
who are subject to the rule understand the effects of prescription and
over-the-counter drugs and dietary factors on drug and alcohol test
results. Examples of medications, supplements, and dietary factors that
can affect drug and alcohol test results may include, but are not
limited to, ingesting foods containing poppy seeds, drinking coca tea,
using some liquid or inhalant cold and cough preparations containing
alcohol or codeine, and taking supplements containing hemp oil.
Section 26.29(a)(8) and (a)(9) of the final rule retains the
requirements in former Sec. 26.22(a)(3) and (a)(4), respectively,
without changes.
Section 26.29(a)(10) amends former Sec. 26.22(a)(5). The provision
retains the former requirement for FFD training to address the
licensee's or other entity's process for initiating appropriate
corrective action if an individual has an FFD concern about another
person, including referral to the EAP. The final rule adds a
requirement for FFD training
[[Page 17016]]
to ensure that individuals understand their responsibility to report
FFD concerns to the person(s) who are designated to receive such
reports in FFD program procedures. This change is consistent with Sec.
26.33, which requires individuals to perform behavioral observation and
report any FFD concerns, as discussed with respect to Sec.
26.27(b)(11). The change is also consistent with Sec. 26.27(c)(4),
which requires procedures for implementing the requirement. The NRC has
added this group of interrelated requirements to meet Goal 3 of this
rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs
and Goal 4 to improve consistency between FFD requirements and access
authorization requirements established in 10 CFR 73.56, as supplemented
by orders to nuclear power plant licensees dated January 7, 2003.
Section 26.29(b) of the final rule adds a requirement that
individuals must demonstrate attainment of the KAs specified in Sec.
26.29(a) by passing a comprehensive examination. The NRC has added this
requirement because in several instances since Part 26 was first
promulgated, individuals were able to overturn determinations that they
had violated a licensee's FFD policy on the basis that they had not
understood the information they received during FFD training and could
not be expected to comply with the requirements of the policy.
Therefore, the final rule requires individuals to demonstrate their
attainment of the KAs listed in Sec. 26.29(a) to ensure that the FFD
training has been effective. The final rule requires remedial training
for those who fail to achieve a passing score of 80 percent on the
examination. Section 26.29(b) also requires the examination to include
at least one question for each KA. These requirements are modeled on
other required training programs that have been successful in ensuring
that examinations are valid and individuals have achieved an adequate
understanding of the subject matter. Establishing a method to ensure
that individuals understand the requirements with which they must
comply meets Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness of
FFD programs.
The provision also permits the use of various media for
administering the comprehensive examination, in order to achieve the
efficiencies associated with computer-based training and testing, for
example, and other new training delivery technologies that may become
available. Permitting the use of various media to administer the
examination meets the portion of Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve
the efficiency of FFD programs. The permission also meets Goal 5 to
improve Part 26 by eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements
through providing flexibility in the methods that licensees and other
entities may use to administer the required examination.
Section 26.29(c) of the final rule combines and amends the portions
of former Sec. Sec. 26.21(b) and 26.22(c) that required FFD training
for individuals who are subject to this section before they are
permitted to perform duties that require them to be subject to this
part.
Section 26.29(c)(1) requires that all personnel who are subject to
this section must complete FFD training before the licensee or other
entity grants initial authorization to the individual, as defined in
Sec. 26.55 [Initial authorization]. The final rule also requires that
an individual's training must be current before the licensee or other
entity grants an authorization update or reinstatement to the
individual, as defined in Sec. 26.57 [Authorization update] and Sec.
26.59 [Authorization reinstatement], respectively. The provision also
eliminates the requirement in former Sec. 26.22(c) to upgrade training
for newly assigned supervisors within 3 months of a supervisory
assignment because all personnel will receive the same scope of
training and be required to complete the training before a licensee or
other entity grants authorization to any individual. These changes are
consistent with the requirements related to granting and maintaining
authorization that are established in Subpart C [Granting and
Maintaining Authorization] of the final rule, as discussed in this
document with respect to that subpart. The changes also meet Goal 3 of
this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD
programs.
Section 26.29(c)(2) retains and combines the requirements for
annual refresher training in former Sec. Sec. 26.21(b) and 26.22(c).
Former Sec. 26.21(b) addressed individuals who are subject to this
part and former Sec. 26.22(c) addressed supervisors and escorts. The
final rule combines the former requirements because all personnel
receive the same scope of training under the final rule. The final rule
specifies that individuals must complete the refresher training every
12 months, or more frequently when the need is indicated. With respect
to the proposed rule, the final rule gives some examples of situations
that indicate a need to conduct the refresher training more frequently
than every 12 months, but this list is not inclusive of all situations
that may indicate this need. Adding these examples clarifies the NRC's
intent and meets Goal 6 of the rulemaking to clarify the language of
the rule. The final provision permits individuals who pass a
comprehensive annual examination that demonstrates their continued
understanding of the FFD program requirements to be excused from the
refresher training that the provision otherwise requires. The
examination is necessary to meet the examination requirements specified
in Sec. 26.29(b) [Comprehensive examination]. Individuals who do not
pass must undergo remedial training. Permitting individuals to pass a
comprehensive examination rather than take refresher training each year
ensures that they are retaining their FFD KAs while reducing some costs
associated with meeting the annual refresher training requirement.
Therefore, this change meets Goal 5 of this rulemaking to improve Part
26 by eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements.
Section 26.29(c)(3) permits licensees and other entities to use
various media, in addition to traditional classroom instruction, for
presenting initial and refresher training for the same reasons
discussed with respect to the portion of Sec. 26.29(b) that permits
licensees and other entities to use various media to administer the
comprehensive examination. The requirements for a licensee or other
entity to monitor the completion of training and provide access to an
instructor or subject matter expert ensures that individuals who are
trained using different media achieve the same understanding as persons
who are trained in a classroom setting with an instructor present. This
flexibility may reduce the costs associated with presenting initial and
refresher training only in a classroom setting. Therefore, this change
meets Goal 5 of this rulemaking to improve Part 26 by eliminating or
modifying unnecessary requirements.
To meet the annual refresher training requirement for individuals,
Sec. 26.29(d) of the final rule permits licensees and other entities
to accept the training of individuals who have been subject to another
training program that meets the requirements of this section. Licensees
and other entities are also permitted to accept a passing result from a
comprehensive examination that was administered by another training
program that meets the requirements of this section in lieu of
refresher training, if the examination meets the requirements of Sec.
26.29(b). This requirement meets Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs.
[[Page 17017]]
Section 26.31 Drug and Alcohol Testing
Section 26.31 of the final rule renames former Sec. 26.24
[Chemical and alcohol testing]. The final rule, in general, replaces
the former term ``chemical testing'' with ``drug testing'' because the
testing for chemicals that is required in the rule is performed only in
the context of urine drug testing. Therefore, the term ``drug testing''
more accurately conveys the nature of the testing that is performed.
The NRC has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to
improve clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.31(a) [General] of the final rule retains but updates
the language in former Sec. 26.24(a) to be consistent with the new
terminology used throughout the rule as discussed in Sec. 26.5. The
NRC has made this change to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve
clarity in the language of the rule.
Section 26.31(b) [Assuring the honesty and integrity of FFD program
personnel] of the final rule amends former Section 2.3 in Appendix A to
Part 26. Other than making minor clarifications to the rule text as
explained below, the NRC has adopted the requirements of paragraph (b)
of this section as proposed, without change.
Section 26.31(b)(1) amends the first paragraph of former Section
2.3 in Appendix A to Part 26. This paragraph required licensees to
carefully select and monitor persons responsible for administering the
testing program to ensure that they meet the highest standards of
honesty and integrity. The final rule replaces the former list of
individuals who are subject to this requirement with a cross-reference
to Sec. 26.4(g) of the final rule, which specifies in detail the FFD
program personnel who must be subject to the FFD program. This cross-
reference avoids repeating the list of personnel in this provision.
The provision also adds a reference to factors, other than a
personal relationship with an individual who is subject to testing,
that have the potential to cause an individual to be subject to
influence attempts or may adversely affect the honesty and integrity of
FFD program personnel. In addition to a personal relationship with an
individual who is subject to testing, factors that could cause an
individual to be compromised may include, but are not limited to, a
substance abuse problem or financial problems. Therefore, the final
rule adds a reference to these additional factors to more accurately
characterize the scope of potential concerns that licensees and other
entities must consider when selecting and monitoring the honesty and
integrity of FFD program personnel. The NRC has made these changes to
meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the language of
the rule.
Section 26.31(b)(1)(i) amends former Section 2.3(2) in Appendix A
to Part 26 in response to implementation questions regarding the former
requirements. The provision clarifies that the background
investigations, credit and criminal history checks, and psychological
evaluations that are required for persons who are granted unescorted
access to protected areas in nuclear power plants are acceptable when
determining the honesty and integrity of FFD program personnel. The
final rule retains the term ``appropriate'' in the former rule for two
reasons. First, it indicates that FFD program personnel who are
employed by entities who are subject to the rule but are not nuclear
power plants, may meet the requirements through investigations, checks,
and evaluations that provide the information needed to determine the
honesty and integrity of FFD program personnel, but the investigations,
checks, and evaluations may differ from those required under nuclear
power plant access authorization programs. In addition, the final rule
retains the term ``appropriate'' because it has particular relevance to
the requirement for licensees and other entities to conduct criminal
history checks for FFD program personnel. In some cases, licensees and
other entities cannot legally obtain the same type of criminal history
information about FFD program personnel as they are able to obtain for
other individuals who are subject to Part 26. Therefore, the term
``appropriate'' is used to indicate that local criminal history checks
for FFD program personnel who do not have unescorted access to nuclear
power plant protected areas are acceptable. The NRC has made these
changes to meet the portion of Goal 6 of this rulemaking that pertains
to improving clarity in the language of the rule.
The NRC has relaxed the requirement in former Section 2.3(2) in
Appendix A to Part 26 for appropriate background checks and
psychological evaluations to be conducted at least once every 3 years
to require that credit and criminal history checks and updated
psychological assessments be conducted nominally every 5 years. The
final rule relaxes the former requirement for several reasons. First,
the NRC is not aware of any instances in which licensees and other
entities have identified new information about FFD program personnel
from updating the background checks and psychological assessments that
had not already been identified through other avenues, including self-
reports by FFD program personnel, drug and alcohol testing, and
behavioral observation. However, the NRC continues to believe that the
required updates provide an independent method to verify the ongoing
honesty and integrity of FFD program personnel that is necessary
because of the critical importance of FFD program personnel in assuring
program effectiveness. Therefore, the final rule retains the former
requirement for updated background checks and psychological
assessments, but reduces the required frequency of these updates from
every 3 years to every 5 years under the final rule. The NRC has made
this change to meet Goal 5 of this rulemaking to improve Part 26 by
eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements. In addition, the
frequency for these updates increases the consistency of Part 26 with
access authorization requirements established in 10 CFR 73.56, as
supplemented by orders to nuclear power plant licensees dated January
7, 2003, which is Goal 4 of this rulemaking.
Section 26.31(b)(1)(ii) amends and clarifies former Section 2.3(1)
in Appendix A to Part 26 in response to the many implementation
questions that have arisen after the regulation was published. The
former rule prohibited individuals who have a personal relationship
with the individual being tested (i.e., a donor), such as the donor's
``supervisors, coworkers, and relatives,'' from performing any
``collection, assessment, or evaluation procedures'' involving the
individual being tested. The NRC included the restriction on
``supervisors, coworkers, and relatives'' in the former rule to provide
examples of the ``personal relationships'' referenced in the
introductory paragraph of former Section 2.3 in Appendix A to Part 26.
Some licensees have misinterpreted the restriction on coworkers in the
former rule as meaning that no one who is an employee of the same
corporation may be involved in collection, assessment, or evaluation
procedures. However, in a large corporation, many individuals employed
by the same corporation will not have personal relationships with FFD
program personnel, specifically, or with other individuals who are
subject to testing, in general. Therefore, in Sec. 26.31(b)(1)(ii),
the phrase ``in the same work group'' clarifies that the example
regarding coworkers pertains to individuals who report to the same
manager. For example, FFD program
[[Page 17018]]
personnel report to the FFD program manager and would be considered
``coworkers in the same work group'' to whom the restriction applies.
In addition, the section adds a reference to determinations of fitness
(discussed with respect to Sec. 26.189 [Determination of fitness]) to
provide a clarifying example of the assessment and evaluation
procedures that FFD program personnel are prohibited from performing if
the FFD program staff member has a personal relationship with the
subject individual. The NRC has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of
this rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of
the rule.
Section 26.31(b)(1)(iii) relaxes the prohibition on individuals who
have ``personal relationships'' with the donor from performing specimen
collection procedures in former Section 2.3(1) in Appendix A to Part
26. The NRC acknowledges that the former restriction imposed an
unnecessary burden when the objective of ensuring the integrity of
specimen collections in these circumstances could be achieved by other
means. Therefore, in Sec. 26.31(b)(1)(iii), individuals who have a
personal relationship with a donor are permitted to collect specimens,
if another individual who does not have a personal relationship with
the donor and is not a supervisor, a coworker in the same work group,
or a relative of the donor monitors the collection and preparation of
the specimens for shipping. The section also provides examples of the
types of individuals who may monitor the integrity of specimen
collection procedures in these circumstances, including but not limited
to, security force or quality assurance personnel. By permitting
monitored collections in these circumstances while continuing to assure
the integrity of specimen collections from FFD program personnel, this
provision meets Goal 5 of this rulemaking to improve Part 26 by
eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements. The final rule
retains the prohibition for individuals who have personal relationships
with the donor from performing assessment and evaluation procedures
because monitoring of these activities by qualified personnel is not
feasible.
If a directly observed collection is required, Sec.
26.31(b)(1)(iv) of the final rule adds a prohibition for an individual
who has a personal relationship with the donor from acting as a urine
collector or observer. This prohibition is necessary to minimize
embarrassment to the donor (and the collector) during a directly
observed collection. The NRC has added this provision to meet Goal 7 of
this rulemaking, relating to protecting the privacy rights of
individuals who are subject to Part 26.
Section 26.31(b)(1)(v) amends former Section 2.3(3) in Appendix A
to Part 26 to require that MROs who are on site at a licensee's or
other entity's facility must be subject to behavioral observation. For
the purposes of Sec. 26.31(b)(1)(v), a ``facility'' includes, but is
not limited to, a licensee's or other entity's corporate offices and
any medical facilities that the licensee or other entity operates. The
NRC has added this requirement because MROs are ``persons responsible
for administering the testing program,'' but some FFD programs have not
included MROs in the behavioral observation element of their programs.
However, the final rule limits the behavioral observation of MROs to
those times when they are on site at a licensee's or other entity's
facility in order to permit licensees and other entities to continue
relying on the services of MROs who normally work independently, often
alone, in offices at a geographical distance from the licensee's or
other entity's facilities so that behavioral observation is
impractical. Limiting the requirement for behavioral observation of
MROs to those instances in which the MRO is working on site at a
licensee's or other entity's facility is adequate to ensure the
continuing honesty and integrity of these MROs because MROs who work
off site would not interact on a daily basis with other individuals who
are subject to the FFD program. Therefore, off site MROs would be less
likely to be subject to potential influence attempts than MROs who
normally work on site because they are generally inaccessible. The
final rule continues to require all MROs to be subject to the other FFD
program elements that are required in this subpart. These elements
include drug and alcohol testing and regular psychological assessments
and background investigations, which permit licensees and other
entities to monitor the honesty and integrity of off site MROs. The NRC
has added this relaxation to meet Goal 5 of this rulemaking to improve
Part 26 by eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements.
A new Sec. 26.31(b)(2) provides another relaxation from the former
rule related to collecting specimens from FFD program personnel. The
provision permits FFD program personnel to submit specimens for testing
at collection sites that meet the requirements of 49 CFR Part 40,
``Procedures for Department of Transportation Workplace Drug and
Alcohol Testing Programs'' (65 FR 41944; August 9, 2001). As discussed
with respect to Sec. 26.31(b)(1), some FFD program personnel, such as
contract MROs and EAP staff members, normally work at locations that
are so distant from a licensee's collection site(s) as to make it
impractical for them to be randomly tested at a licensee's or other
entity's collection site. Permitting these FFD program personnel to be
tested at local collection sites that follow similar procedures is
adequate to meet the goal of ensuring their continuing honesty and
integrity. Therefore, the NRC has added this provision to meet Goal 5
of this rulemaking to improve Part 26 by eliminating or modifying
unnecessary requirements.
Section 26.31(c) [Conditions for testing] replaces former Sec.
26.24(a)(1) through (a)(4). The provision lists the situations in which
testing is required in separate paragraphs, such as ``pre-access,''
``for cause,'' and ``post-event'' testing to clarify that each
situation for which testing is required stands on its own. The former
provision in Sec. 26.24(a)(3), in particular, has led to confusion and
misinterpretation of the requirements, to be corrected as noted below.
Subparts E [Collecting Specimens for Testing], F [Licensee Testing
Facilities], and G [Laboratories Certified by the Department of Health
and Human Services] address the specific requirements for conducting
the testing. The final rule reorganizes and amends former Sec.
26.24(a)(1) through (a)(4) to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve
clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.31(c)(1) [Pre-access] amends former Sec. 26.24(a)(1).
Former Sec. 26.24(a)(1) required pre-access testing within 60 days
before the initial granting of unescorted access to protected areas or
assignment to duties within the scope of this part. Section 26.31(c) of
the final rule introduces the concepts of ``initial authorization,''
``authorization update,'' and ``authorization reinstatement,'' which
refer to categories of requirements that licensees and other entities
must meet in order to assign an individual to duties that require the
individual to be subject to Part 26. Section 26.65 [Pre-access drug and
alcohol testing] in Subpart C of the final rule specifies detailed
requirements for conducting pre-access testing.
Section 26.31(c)(2) [For cause] and (c)(3) [Post event] clarifies
and amends former Sec. 26.24(a)(3), as follows:
Section 26.31(c)(2) continues to require for-cause testing in
response to any observed behavior or physical
[[Page 17019]]
condition indicating possible substance abuse. The final rule also
retains the former requirement for testing if the licensee or other
entity receives credible information that an individual is engaging in
substance abuse. Section 26.3 defines the term ``substance abuse.''
Section 26.31(c)(3) [Post event] amends the portion of former Sec.
26.24(a)(3) that required drug and alcohol testing when an event
involving a failure in individual performance leads to significant
consequences. The final rule amends the former provision because it has
been subject to misinterpretation and numerous questions from
licensees.
The phrase ``if there is reasonable suspicion that the worker's
behavior contributed to the event'' in former Sec. 26.24(a)(3) has
been subject to misinterpretation. The location of this phrase at the
end of the list of conditions under which post-event testing must be
performed has led some licensees to conclude that this phrase applies
only to events involving actual or potential substantial degradations
of the level of safety of the plant. Other licensees have
misinterpreted the term ``reasonable suspicion'' as meaning
``reasonable suspicion of substance abuse'' or some other ``illegal''
or ``disreputable'' activity. Neither of these interpretations is
consistent with the intent of this provision. Therefore, to clarify the
intent of the provision, the final rule eliminates the phrase ``if
there is reasonable suspicion that the worker's behavior contributed to
the event'' from the end of the list of significant events that require
post-event testing and, instead, requires post-event testing as soon as
practical after significant events (as listed in Sec. 26.31(c)(3)(i)
through (c)(3)(iii)) involving a human error that may have caused or
contributed to the event. The final rule uses the term ``human error''
rather than the former term ``worker's behavior'' to emphasize that
post-event testing is required for acts that unintentionally deviated
from what was planned or expected in a given task environment (see
NUREG/CR-6751, ``The Human Performance Evaluation Process: A Resource
for Reviewing the Identification and Resolution of Human Performance
Problems'') as well as failures to act (i.e., errors of omission).
Therefore, testing is required regardless of whether there was
``reasonable suspicion'' that the individual was abusing drugs or
alcohol for the consequences listed in the section.
In addition, the NRC has added the second sentence of Sec.
26.31(c)(3) to clearly delineate the scope of individuals who must be
subject to post-event testing. Some licensees have misinterpreted the
former provision as requiring the testing of all individuals who are
involved in a significant event, including individuals whose behavior
played no causal or contributing role in the event. For example, these
licensees' FFD programs would require testing an individual who was
exposed to radiation in excess of regulatory limits, even if other
individuals' actions (or failures to act) were responsible for the
event and the individual who suffered the exposure was a bystander.
Therefore, the second sentence of the provision clarifies the original
intent of this section by stating that only the individual(s) who
committed the error(s) is subject to post-event testing.
Section 26.31(c)(3)(i) provides a threshold for the types of
workplace personal injuries and illnesses for which post-event testing
is required in response to implementation questions related to former
Sec. 26.24(a)(3). Some licensees have misinterpreted the former
provision as requiring post-event testing for any personal injury, no
matter how minor. This section clarifies the type of personal injuries
and illnesses for which post-event testing would be required by
establishing a threshold that is based on the general criteria
contained in 29 CFR 1904.7, ``General Recording Criteria,'' of the
regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
for recording occupational injuries and illnesses. As defined in the
OSHA standard and the final rule, these include any injuries and
illnesses which result in death, days away from work, restricted work,
transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of
consciousness, or other significant injury or illness as diagnosed by a
physician or other licensed health care professional. In the case of a
significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or health care
professional, a serious injury or illness does not need to result in
death, days away from work, restricted work, transfer to another job,
medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness. The final
rule adds this clarification to reduce the number of unnecessary post-
event tests performed for minor injuries and illnesses and meet Goal 3
of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD
programs.
Section 26.31(c)(3)(i) also includes the qualifying phrase,
``within 4 hours after the event,'' with reference to the recordable
personal injuries and illnesses that would trigger post-event testing.
The NRC acknowledges that in some cases it is difficult to detect
illnesses and injuries that meet the threshold for post-event testing
at the time they occur. For example, if an individual has been injured
on site but does not report the injury to the licensee or other entity
and waits for several days to seek treatment from his or her private
physician, the licensee or other entity may not learn of the injury.
The extent of an injury may be unclear at the time it occurs and may
appear to fall below the threshold for post-event testing until several
days have passed. In these examples, if the licensee or other entity
learns after several days that the injury would have met the threshold
for post-event testing, it would be too late for post-event testing to
be of any value in determining whether the individual's use of drugs or
alcohol may have contributed to the event. If alcohol or drug use had
contributed to the event, testing several days later would be unlikely
to detect it because of the effects of metabolism. Further, it would be
difficult to prove that any positive test results reflected the
individual's condition at the time the event occurred rather than
subsequent drug or alcohol use. Therefore, the final rule limits post-
event testing to situations in which the licensee or other entity can
determine that an injury or illness meets the threshold within four
hours after the event has occurred, and can conduct the testing within
a time frame that will provide useful information about the
individual's condition at the time of the event. However, the section
should not be misinterpreted as requiring post-event testing to be
completed within four hours after the event. Section 26.31(c)(3)
defines the time period after the event within which testing must be
completed as ``as soon as practical.'' The NRC has made this change to
meet Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of FFD programs.
Section 26.31(c)(3)(ii) retains the relevant language in the
corresponding portion of former Sec. 26.24(a)(3) without change.
Section 26.31(c)(3)(iii) retains the relevant language in the
corresponding portion of former Sec. 26.24(a)(3). However, as
discussed with respect to Sec. 26.31(c), the final rule eliminates the
former qualifying phrase ``if there is reasonable suspicion that the
worker's behavior contributed to the event.'' The NRC has eliminated
this phrase because it is preferable to determine the need for post-
event testing using an objective standard based on the severity of the
underlying event. The experience of the DOT with post-accident testing,
for example, is that it is more effective to separate completely ``for
cause''
[[Page 17020]]
concepts (such as ``reasonable suspicion'' of substance abuse) from
post-event testing. Under the final rule's approach, if one of the
events occurs that is defined in the regulations as requiring post-
event testing, then that testing should be carried out irrespective of
the presence or absence of any ``reasonable suspicion'' of substance
abuse.
Section 26.31(c)(4) [Followup] retains the intent of former Sec.
26.24(a)(4) but amends its language. The final rule eliminates the
former phrase ``to verify an individual's continued abstention from the
use of substances covered under this part'' because it could be
misinterpreted as limiting the substances for which followup testing is
permitted to only those listed in Sec. 26.31(d)(1) [Substances
tested]. The final rule revises this phrase as ``to verify continued
abstinence from substance abuse'' to clarify that FFD programs are
permitted to conduct followup testing for any substances an individual
may have abused, subject to certain additional requirements discussed
with respect to Sec. 26.31(d)(1)(i). Section 26.69 [Authorization with
potentially disqualifying fitness-for-duty information] establishes
detailed requirements for conducting followup testing, where they apply
to licensees' and other entities' processes for granting and
maintaining authorization. The final rule makes these changes to meet
Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and
language of the rule.
Section 26.31(c)(5) [Random] simplifies former Sec. 26.24(a)(2) to
define random testing as one of the conditions under which testing is
required. The NRC has moved the detailed requirements for implementing
random testing that were contained in former Sec. 26.24(a)(2) to Sec.
26.31(d) [General requirements for drug and alcohol testing] of the
final rule. The NRC has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.31(d) to the final rule to better
organize requirements related to the general administration of drug and
alcohol testing. The final rule presents more detailed requirements for
conducting drug and alcohol testing in Subparts E, F, and G. The NRC
has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve
clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.31(d)(1) [Substances tested] retains the list of drugs
for which testing must be conducted in former Section 2.1(a) in
Appendix A to Part 26, but clarifies that for some drugs the testing is
conducted to detect drug metabolites. The NRC has moved the provisions
detailing the circumstances in which testing for these substances must
be performed (i.e., pre-access, post-event, random) to Sec. 26.31(c)
for organizational clarity. In addition, the section adds adulterants
to the list of substances for which testing must be conducted,
consistent with the addition of specimen validity testing requirements
to the final rule, as discussed with respect to Sec. 26.31(d)(3)(i).
Section 26.31(d)(1)(i) retains the permission in the second sentence of
former Sec. 26.24(c) for licensees and other entities to consult with
local law enforcement agencies or other sources of information to
identify drugs that may be abused by individuals in the geographical
locale of the FFD program.
Section 26.31(d)(1)(i)(A) retains the permission in former Sec.
26.24(c) for licensees and other entities to add to the panel of drugs
for which testing is required in Sec. 26.31(d)(1). Additional drugs
may include, but are not limited to, ``designer drugs,'' such as
ecstasy or ketamine, and illegal drugs that are popular in some
geographical areas, such as lysergic acid diethylamide-25 (LSD). The
provision also requires that any additional drugs must be listed on
Schedules I-V of section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act [21
U.S.C. 812], which is consistent with the definition of ``illegal
drugs'' in former Sec. 26.3.
Section 26.31(d)(1)(i)(B) retains the last sentence in former Sec.
26.24(c). The provision requires licensees and other entities to
establish appropriate cutoff levels for any additional substances for
which testing will be conducted.
Section 26.31(d)(1)(i)(C) retains the requirement in former Section
2.1(c) in Appendix A to Part 26. The provision specifies that licensees
and other entities must establish rigorous testing procedures for any
additional drugs.
Section 26.31(d)(1)(i)(D) further clarifies the requirement in
Sec. 26.31(d)(1)(i)(C) for ``rigorous testing procedures.'' The
provision replaces the portion of former Section 1.1(2) in Appendix A
to Part 26 that required licensees to obtain written approval from the
NRC to test for additional drugs. The purpose of the former requirement
was to provide an opportunity for the NRC to verify that the assays and
cutoff levels licensees use in testing for additional drugs are
scientifically sound and legally defensible. However, the former
requirement also imposed a reporting burden. The final provision
eliminates this reporting requirement and replaces it with requirements
for an independent forensic toxicologist who has no relationships that
could be construed as potential conflicts of interest to conduct the
review that the NRC currently performs. The final rule requires the
independent forensic toxicologist to certify, in advance and in
writing, that the assay to be used in testing for any additional drugs
or drug metabolites, and the cutoff levels to be applied, are
scientifically sound and legally defensible. This section also
specifies the required qualifications for the forensic toxicologist.
Certification of the assay and cutoff levels are not required in
two circumstances: (1) If the HHS Guidelines are revised to permit use
of the assay and the cutoff levels in Federal workplace drug testing
programs and the licensee or other entity uses the cutoff levels
established in the HHS Guidelines for drug or drug metabolites; and (2)
if the licensee and other entity received written approval of the NRC
to test for the additional drug or drug metabolites before the
implementation date of the final rule, which is 365 days after the date
the final rule is published in the Federal Register. Certification by a
toxicologist is unnecessary in these two circumstances because it would
be redundant. By eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements,
while continuing to ensure that any drug testing conducted under Part
26 is scientifically sound and legally defensible, this provision meets
Goal 5 of this rulemaking.
Section 26.31(d)(1)(ii) amends former Section 2.1(b) in Appendix A
to Part 26. The provision permits licensees and other entities, when
conducting for-cause, post-event, and followup testing, to test for any
drugs listed on Schedules I-V of the Controlled Substances Act that the
licensee or other entity suspects the individual may have abused, as
follows:
The section adds a reference to post-event testing for consistency
with the intent of former Section 2.1(b) in Appendix A to Part 26,
which permitted testing for any illegal drugs during a for-cause test.
The former rule included post-event testing within the definition of
for-cause testing. The final rule uses a distinct term ``post-event''
testing to refer to the testing that is required following certain
events as discussed with respect to Sec. 26.31(d)(3). Therefore, it is
necessary to add a reference to post-event testing to this section to
retain the full intent of the former provision.
The section also adds a reference to followup testing, which
permits the
[[Page 17021]]
licensee or other entity to test for an additional drug if an
individual who is subject to followup testing is suspected of having
abused it. For example, if an SAE, in the course of performing a
determination of fitness under Sec. 26.189 found that an individual
was abusing barbiturates, this provision would permit followup testing
to verify that the individual is abstaining from such abuse. The NRC
has made this change to strengthen the followup testing element of FFD
programs by ensuring that followup testing would detect continued drug
abuse. Therefore, this provision is consistent with Goal 3 of this
rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs.
The section retains the limitation in former Section 2.1(b) in
Appendix A to Part 26 that permitted testing only for illegal drugs
that the individual is suspected of having abused and extends that
limitation to followup testing. The final rule extends this limitation
to followup testing to protect donors' rights to privacy, which is the
same reason that the limitation was established in the former rule with
respect to for-cause testing. Licensees and other entities are
prohibited from conducting a wide spectrum of tests for any drugs
without suspicion that the individual had abused them because such
tests could reveal personal medical information about the individual
that is irrelevant to the performance objectives of this part, as
discussed with respect to Sec. 26.23. Thus, extending the former
limitation on for-cause testing to followup testing meets Goal 7 of
this rulemaking to protect the privacy rights and other rights
(including due process) of individuals who are subject to Part 26.
The final rule replaces the term ``illegal drugs'' in former
Section 2.1(b) in Appendix A to Part 26 with a specific reference to
the drugs that are listed on Schedules I-V of the Controlled Substances
Act. These schedules list drugs with abuse potential and include many
drugs with legitimate medical uses that are not ``illegal'' when used
with a valid prescription for medical purposes. Therefore, replacing
the term ``illegal drugs'' with the reference to Schedules I-V of the
Controlled Substances Act (CSA) more accurately characterizes the
specific drugs for which testing is permitted. The NRC has made this
change to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the
language of the rule.
Section 26.31(d)(1)(ii) also applies the new requirements in Sec.
26.31(d)(1)(i)(D) related to testing for drugs that are not included in
the FFD program's panel of drugs to for-cause, post-event, and followup
testing. The section requires that a forensic toxicologist certify the
assays and cutoff levels to be used in testing for the additional
drugs. The provision provides consistency with Sec. 26.31(d)(1)(i)(D)
and ensures that the testing is scientifically sound and legally
defensible. The NRC has made this change to protect donors' rights as
it relates to minimizing the possibility of false positive test
results. The provision also strengthens the effectiveness of FFD
programs by ensuring that tests for additional drugs that are conducted
for cause, post-event, or as part of a followup program will accurately
detect drugs that an individual may have abused. Therefore, the NRC has
made this change to meet Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect the
rights (including due process) of individuals who are subject to Part
26 and Goal 3 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD
programs.
The NRC has added the last sentence of Sec. 26.31(d)(1)(ii) to
prohibit inappropriate practices that some FFD programs have
implemented. The NRC is aware that some FFD programs have directed
their HHS-certified laboratories to test specimens that are collected
for for-cause, post-event, or followup testing at the assay's LOD
without first subjecting the specimens to initial testing. In addition,
if a drug or drug metabolite is detected at the LOD, the MROs in these
programs have confirmed the test result as an FFD policy violation even
if the quantitative test result falls below the FFD program's
established confirmatory cutoff level. Although these practices may
increase the likelihood of detecting drug abuse, they are inconsistent
with one of the bases for establishing cutoff levels for drug testing.
This basis is to minimize the likelihood of false positives that could
result in the imposition of sanctions on an individual who has not
abused drugs. It also subjects individuals who are undergoing for-
cause, post-event, or followup testing to unequal treatment when
compared to individuals who are subject to random and pre-access
testing, in which the established cutoff levels must be applied.
Therefore, the final rule specifically prohibits these practices, but
adds, with respect to the proposed rule, an exception for a situation
in which the specimen is dilute and the licensee or other entity has
requested the HHS-certified laboratory to evaluate the specimen under
Sec. Sec. 26.163(a)(2) and 26.185(g)(3). The NRC has made these
changes to meet Goal 7 of this rulemaking as it relates to protecting
the rights of individuals (including due process) who are subject to
Part 26, by requiring that individuals who are subject to for-cause,
post-event, and followup testing must be subject to the same testing
procedures and cutoff levels as others who are tested under this part.
With respect to the proposed rule, the NRC has added Sec.
26.31(d)(1)(iii) to the final rule to require the licensee or other
entity to document the additional drug(s) for which testing will be
performed in written policies and procedures. A public comment
suggested that licensees and other entities should not screen for drugs
in addition to those listed in paragraph (d)(1) of this section without
identifying them in advance. The NRC agrees that informing individuals
of the substances for which testing will routinely occur and the cutoff
levels to be applied may deter abuse of those substances. Information
about the drugs for which testing will occur, and their potential
effects on job performance, is also an important part of the FFD
training that individuals must receive under Sec. 26.29, to assist
individuals in meeting their responsibilities under the rule. This
added provision is also consistent with Sec. 26.31(d)(3)(iii)(A) that
requires licensees and other entities to document more stringent cutoff
levels for drug testing than those specified in Sec. 26.163 in written
policies and procedures. However, the NRC does not agree that a
licensee should be prohibited from testing for drugs in addition to
those listed in the rule without identifying them in advance. Although
deterring substance abuse is an important goal of the rule, detecting
substance abuse is equally important. Therefore, both the former and
final rules permit licensees to add drugs to the panel of substances
for which they routinely test, as well as to conduct tests to detect
any drugs listed on Schedules I-IV of the CSA in followup, post-event,
and for-cause testing that the individual is suspected of abusing. The
NRC has added this requirement to meet Goal 3 of this rulemaking to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs and Goal 6 to
improve clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.31(d)(2) [Random testing] reorganizes and amends the
requirements for conducting random testing. These requirements appeared
in former Sec. 26.24(a)(2), as described in the following paragraphs.
Section 26.31(d)(2)(i) adds a requirement for licensees and other
entities to administer random testing in a manner that provides
reasonable assurance that individuals are unable to
[[Page 17022]]
predict the time periods during which specimens will be collected. The
NRC has added this provision because the NRC is aware of instances when
individuals who believed they would have a positive test result if
tested have been able to determine the days on which collections were
being conducted. This determination then gave them the opportunity to
leave work under the guise of illness in order to avoid the possibility
of being tested. The ability to detect that specimens are being or will
be collected for random testing also provides an opportunity for
individuals to be prepared to subvert the testing by procuring an
adulterant or urine substitute and keeping it available on their
persons during the periods that specimens are collected. However, the
NRC also recognizes that it is impossible to ensure that individuals
are unable to detect the periods when specimens are being collected. At
a minimum, coworkers will be suspicious that collections are occurring
if they observe an individual leaving the work site and returning
within a short time, even if the supervisor and individual do not
discuss the reason for the individual's short absence. Therefore, the
section requires licensees and other entities to conduct random testing
in a manner that would provide ``reasonable assurance'' that
individuals are unable to predict when specimens will be collected,
rather than requiring them to ``ensure'' that the period of time during
which specimens will be collected cannot be detected. However,
licensees and other entities are required to minimize the likelihood
that individuals who are subject to testing know that they are more
likely to be called for testing at certain times than others.
Within this context, Sec. 26.31(d)(2)(i)(A) adds a requirement
that licensees and other entities take reasonable steps to either
conceal from the workforce that collections will be performed during a
scheduled collection period, or create the appearance that specimens
are being collected during a portion of each day on at least 4 days in
each calendar week at each site. With respect to the proposed rule, the
final rule clarifies that in the latter instance, the portions of each
day and the days of the week must vary in a manner that cannot be
predicted by donors. The NRC, after publishing the proposed rule,
recognized the need for additional clarity in this provision to
illustrate the NRC's intent. Therefore, the NRC has made this change to
meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the language of
the rule.
Section 23.31(d)(2)(i)(A) requires licensees and other entities to
take reasonable steps to minimize the cues that persons may use to
detect that specimens will be collected at a certain time. These cues
may include, but are not limited to, the presence of a mobile
collection facility on site and the presence of collectors at the site
only on days that collections occur, or having the lights on in a
designated collection site and occupying it only when the collection
site is in use. A reasonable step to minimize cues associated with
activities inside a collection site could be covering any outside
windows so that a passerby cannot detect whether the collection site is
occupied. Other steps to meet the requirement could include, but would
not be limited to, stationing a mobile collection facility on site for
some part of the day on 4 days each week or assigning individuals to
staff the designated collection site during periods that specimens are
not being collected during some portion of each day on at least 4 days
in each calendar week. Maintaining the appearance that the collection
site is active on more than half of the days in each week makes it more
difficult for individuals to plan to subvert the testing process by
leaving work when they believe specimens are being collected. By
reducing the opportunities for individuals to subvert the testing
process by having advanced warning that specimens are being collected,
the requirements in Sec. 26.31(d)(2)(i) and paragraph (A) of this
section meet Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness of
FFD programs.
Section 26.31(d)(2)(i)(B) amends the third sentence of former Sec.
26.24(a)(2). This sentence required that specimens must be collected
``at various times during the day.'' The final rule expands the former
requirement to require licensees and other entities to collect
specimens on an unpredictable schedule, including weekends, backshifts,
and holidays, and at various times during a shift. The purpose of the
former and final provisions is to ensure that individuals cannot
predict the times they will be tested, as well as prevent them from
perceiving that there are ``safe'' periods during which they will not
be tested, which may lead them to believe they could engage in
substance abuse without fear of detection. Varying the time periods
during which specimens are collected on an unpredictable schedule also
increases the rule's effectiveness in deterring substance abuse, which
meets Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness of FFD
programs.
Section 26.31(d)(2)(ii) retains the third sentence of former Sec.
26.24(a)(2). Section 26.31(d)(2)(ii) states that random testing must be
administered on a nominal weekly frequency. The former requirement to
collect specimens for random testing at ``various times during the
day'' is retained in Sec. 26.31(d)(2)(i)(B).
Section 26.31(d)(2)(iii) requires individuals who are selected for
random testing to report to the collection site as soon as reasonably
practicable after they have been notified that they have been selected
for testing within the time period established in the FFD policy. The
necessity for the FFD policy to establish a time limit within which
individuals must report for testing is discussed with respect to Sec.
26.27(b)(2). Section 26.31(d)(2)(iii) further clarifies this
requirement by emphasizing the individual's responsibility to report as
soon as reasonably practicable after notification. For example, in
order to cover all of the possible situations when it may not be
possible for an individual to immediately report for testing after
notification (which could include the time required to travel to a
collection site or to change clothes and be monitored for contamination
after working under a radiation work permit), the FFD policy may permit
individuals up to two hours to report for testing after notification.
However, if no legitimate work, travel, or other demands would prevent
an individual from immediately reporting for testing, the provision
requires the individual to report as soon as he or she is notified.
This provision strengthens FFD programs by further reducing
opportunities for individuals to subvert the testing process and,
therefore, meets Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness
of FFD programs.
Section (d)(2)(iv) retains the portion of the first sentence of
former Sec. 26.24(a)(2) that required licensees to ensure that
individuals subject to testing have an equal probability of being
selected and tested. The final rule splits proposed Sec.
26.31(d)(2)(iv) into two paragraphs after the first sentence of the
proposed paragraph, and renumbers the subsequent paragraphs to
accommodate this change. This reorganization is an effort to clarify
the requirements of this section, consistent with Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in organization and language of the rule.
As a result of this renumbering, Sec. 26.31(d)(2)(v) of the final
rule amends the first sentence of former Sec. 26.24(a)(2) to clarify
that individuals who are off site when selected for testing and not
reasonably available for testing when selected, must be tested at the
earliest
[[Page 17023]]
reasonable and practical opportunity. However, the final rule, with
respect to the proposed rule, adds a clarification that individuals who
are on site and not reasonably available for testing also must be
tested at the earliest reasonable and practical opportunity. The NRC
has made this change in response to a public comment, which suggested
that the second sentence of proposed Sec. 26.31(d)(2)(iv) could be
interpreted as requiring individuals who are on site but not reasonably
available for testing to be tested immediately. The commenter gave the
example of an individual who is suited up for work in a radiologically
controlled area from which he or she could not exit to be tested in a
reasonable period of time. The NRC notes that in these cases,
individuals who are on site but not reasonably be available for testing
are required to report to the collection site as soon as reasonably
practical after notification (emphasis on ``notification''), under
Sec. 26.31(d)(2)(iii). In the given example, the supervisor would only
notify the individual about testing after he or she is out of
containment and has changed back to street clothes. If this were to
occur at the end of the shift when collectors have left the site, this
individual would not be notified that he or she must report for testing
until the next time both the donor and the collectors are available to
collect specimens for testing. Because there would be no known reason
that this individual will test positive at the time of collection, any
possible delays in testing should not compromise the performance
objectives of the FFD program. However, the FFD program is responsible
for preventing potential abuses brought on by such delays, which could
include a supervisor protecting known substance abusers through
improper notifications or delaying testing until completion of a
critical job. Therefore, based on this analysis, the NRC has clarified
this provision to reflect the public comment and clarify the NRC's
intent, consistent with Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in
the language of the rule.
The requirements of Sec. 26.31(d)(2)(v) prohibit licensees and
other entities from returning the names of the individuals who are
offsite when selected for testing or who are on site and not reasonably
available for testing when selected to the random testing pool without
conducting a test, as has been the practice of some licensees.
Returning these individuals' names to the random testing pool without
conducting a test ensures that they are immediately eligible for
another unannounced test, as required in Sec. 26.31(d)(2)(vi), but
does not ensure that all individuals who are subject to this part have
an equal probability of being tested. Therefore, the requirement that
individuals who are off site when selected for testing or who are on
site and not reasonably available for testing when selected must be
tested at the earliest reasonable and practical opportunity meets Goal
3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness of FFD programs.
The section includes the phrase ``at the earliest reasonable and
practical opportunity when both the donor and collectors are available
to collect specimens for testing'' to clarify that licensees and other
entities are not required to call an individual back to the site if he
or she is off site when selected for testing. In addition, the
provision does not require licensees and other entities to make special
arrangements to ensure that a collector is available to collect the
specimens as soon as the individual returns to the site. The NRC is
aware that some licensees have called in individuals and collectors in
the past under these circumstances. However, these practices may permit
individuals to predict that they will be subject to testing when they
return to the site. This prediction would provide them with an
opportunity to take actions to subvert the testing process, as
discussed with respect to Sec. 26.31(d)(2)(i). Therefore, the
provision requires licensees and other entities to collect specimens
from an individual who is off site when selected for testing or on site
and not reasonably available for testing, in a manner that also ensures
that the individual does not have advance notification that he or she
has been selected for testing. The NRC has made this change to meet
Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency
of FFD programs.
Section 26.31(d)(2)(vi) of the final rule, renumbered from
(d)(2)(v) in the proposed rule, retains the second sentence of former
Sec. 26.24(a)(2). This provision requires that an individual who has
completed a test is immediately eligible for another random test.
Section 26.31(d)(2)(vii) of the final rule, renumbered from
(d)(2)(vi) in the proposed rule, amends the last sentence of former
Sec. 26.24(a)(2). The NRC has made this change in response to licensee
implementation questions with respect to the meaning of the term
``workforce'' in the former rule. These questions related to whether
``workforce'' means all individuals who are employed by the licensee,
including individuals who are not subject to Part 26, all individuals
at a site, or all individuals who are subject to the licensee's FFD
program. This provision clarifies that the number of random tests that
must be performed in a year must equal 50 percent of the population of
individuals who are subject to random testing under the FFD program. If
a common FFD program covers several sites, the ``population'' would
include all individuals who are subject to the common FFD program. The
population also includes individuals who have applied for authorization
and who are subject to random testing under Sec. 26.67 [Random drug
and alcohol testing of individuals who have applied for authorization].
The NRC has made this change to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to
improve clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.31(d)(3) [Drug testing] to the final
rule to group requirements in one section that are related to the
general administration of drug testing. The NRC has made this change
because requirements that address this topic were dispersed throughout
the former rule. Grouping them together in a section makes them easier
to locate within the final rule. This reorganization meets Goal 6 of
this rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of
the rule.
Section 26.31(d)(3)(i) combines and modifies some of the
requirements in former Section 1.1(3) in Appendix A to Part 26, former
Sec. 26.24(f), the first sentence of former Section 2.8(e)(1) in
Appendix A, and former Section 2.8(a) and (b) in Appendix A to Part 26.
These former provisions required licensees and other entities to use
only HHS-certified laboratories to perform drug testing, except if
initial tests were performed at a licensee testing facility. However,
the final rule has clarified the first sentence of this section, with
respect to the proposed rule, to include validity tests, validity
screening tests, and initial validity tests. The NRC has retained other
detailed requirements in these sections, but they are presented in the
appropriate sections in Subparts E, F, and G of the final rule. The
agency has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to
improve the organizational clarity of the rule.
In addition, Sec. 26.31(d)(3)(i) requires that specimens sent to
the HHS-certified laboratory by the licensee or other entity must be
subject to initial validity and drug testing by the laboratory.
However, the final rule clarifies the language of the proposed rule to
require that any specimens that yield ``positive initial drug test
results or are determined by initial validity testing to be of
[[Page 17024]]
questionable validity'' must be subject to confirmatory testing by the
laboratory. The final rule deletes the term ``non-negative'' from the
proposed rule and adds the term ``questionable validity'' for the
reasons discussed with respect to Sec. 26.5. The NRC has made these
changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve the organizational
clarity of the rule.
Specimen validity testing refers to testing conducted by a
laboratory to identify attempts to tamper with a specimen. Attempts to
tamper with a specimen may include:
(1) Adulteration, which means putting a substance into a specimen
that is designed to mask or destroy the drug or drug metabolite that
the specimen may contain or to adversely affect the assay reagent;
(2) Dilution, which means adding a liquid that, in contrast to an
adulterant, would not be detected by validity testing, to the urine
specimen to decrease the concentration of a drug or metabolite below
the cutoff concentration; and
(3) Substitution, which means replacing a valid urine specimen with
a drug-free specimen.
When HHS published its Notice of Final Revisions to the HHS
Guidelines (66 FR 43876; August 21, 2001) to establish requirements for
specimen validity testing performed by HHS-certified laboratories, HHS
reported that the number of adulterated and substituted urine specimens
has been increasing among the specimens tested under the Federal agency
workplace drug testing program and the DOT regulations (49 CFR Part
40). Program experience gained after Part 26 was first promulgated has
also indicated an increasing number of adulterated and substituted
urine specimens submitted to HHS-certified laboratories from Part 26
testing programs.
Although former Part 26 contained a number of requirements related
to specimen validity (e.g., the fifth sentence of former Sections
2.1(e), 2.4(f)(2), 2.4(g)(14) through (g)(16), and 2.7(d) in Appendix A
to Part 26), the methods available to tamper with specimens have become
more sophisticated after the rule was first published and more
sophisticated methods of detecting tampering are necessary. Therefore,
the final rule incorporates new requirements for HHS-certified
laboratories to conduct specimen validity tests that are consistent
with similar provisions contained in the most recent revision to the
HHS Guidelines (69FR 19643; April 13, 2004). The NRC has added these
new requirements for specimen validity testing to strengthen FFD
programs by improving current laboratory procedures to detect specimens
that are diluted, adulterated, or substituted. This change is
consistent with Goal 1 of this rulemaking to update and enhance the
consistency of Part 26 with advances in other relevant Federal rules
and guidelines. Detecting specimen tampering is necessary to identify
individuals who may attempt to hide drug abuse. Attempts to tamper with
a specimen provide clear evidence that the individual is not
trustworthy and reliable. Also, these individuals' drug use may pose a
risk to public health and safety and the common defense and security,
as discussed with respect to Sec. 26.23.
Section 26.31(d)(3)(ii) amends the first sentence of former Sec.
26.24(d)(1). This sentence permits licensees and other entities to
conduct initial testing of urine specimens at a licensee testing
facility, provided that the licensee testing facility staff possesses
the necessary training and skills for the tasks assigned, the staff's
qualifications are documented, and adequate quality controls for the
testing are implemented. The final rule adds permission for licensees
and other entities to perform initial validity testing at a licensee
testing facility for the reasons discussed with respect to Sec.
26.31(d)(3)(i). Subpart F establishes detailed requirements related to
specimen validity testing at licensee testing facilities.
Section 26.31(d)(3)(iii) is based upon the portions of former
Section 2.7(e)(1) and (f)(2) in Appendix A to Part 26. These former
sections established the cutoff levels for initial and confirmatory
drug testing, respectively, which licensees must apply under the former
rule. However, the final rule requires FFD programs to apply the
updated cutoff levels specified in Sec. 26.163(a)(1) for initial drug
testing and Sec. 26.163(b)(1) for confirmatory drug testing. The final
rule clarifies the language of the proposed rule by adding that either
the licensee testing facility or HHS-certified lab conducts the initial
drug testing and the HHS-certified laboratory conducts the confirmatory
testing. Consistent with the first sentence of former Sec. 26.24(b),
the second sentence of this provision permits FFD programs to implement
more stringent cutoff levels than specified in the rule, but
establishes additional requirements related to lower cutoff levels, as
is discussed with respect to paragraphs (d)(3)(iii)(A) through (C). The
NRC has relocated the permission in the first sentence of former Sec.
26.24(b) to implement a broader panel of drugs to Sec. 26.31(d)(1), as
discussed with respect to that section. The NRC has made these changes
to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the
organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.31(d)(3)(iii)(A) retains the third and fourth sentences
of former Sec. 26.24(b) regarding management actions and sanctions for
confirmed positive drug test results based on any lower cutoff levels
established by the FFD program. The final rule adds a requirement that
the FFD program's written policy and procedures must document the FFD
program's lower cutoff levels in the written policy and procedures to
ensure that individuals who are subject to testing are aware of the
cutoff levels that would be applied to their drug test results in order
to protect their rights. The NRC has made this change to meet Goal 7 of
this rulemaking to protect the privacy and other rights (including due
process) of individuals who are subject to Part 26.
Section 26.31(d)(3)(iii)(B) requires the uniform application of the
FFD program's cutoff levels for drugs and drug metabolites, including
any more stringent cutoff levels in all tests conducted under this part
and equally to all individuals who are subject to testing, except as
permitted under Sec. Sec. 26.31(d)(1)(ii), 26.163(a)(2) for dilute
specimens, and Sec. 26.165(c)(2) for retesting specimens. As discussed
with respect to Sec. 26.31(d)(1)(ii), some FFD programs have adopted
the practice of testing specimens at the assay's LOD for for-cause,
post-event, and followup tests, which results in some individuals
receiving unequal treatment under the rule. Therefore, the NRC has
added the section to meet Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect the
privacy and other rights (including due process) of individuals who are
subject to Part 26.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.31(d)(3)(iii)(C) to the final rule to
specify requirements for establishing more stringent cutoff levels.
Before implementing the more stringent cutoff levels, licensees and
other entities are required to obtain certification from a forensic
toxicologist that the more stringent cutoff levels are technically
sound and legally defensible, with two exceptions. Certification by a
forensic toxicologist is not required if: (1) If the HHS Guidelines are
revised to lower the cutoff levels for the drug or drug metabolites in
Federal workplace drug testing programs and the licensee or other
entity implements the cutoff levels published in the HHS guidelines; or
(2) if the licensee or other entity received written approval of the
NRC to test for lower cutoff levels before the implementation date of
this rule, which is 365 days after the date the final rule
[[Page 17025]]
is published in the Federal Register. Certification by a toxicologist
is unnecessary in these two circumstances because it would be
redundant. The NRC has made this change to meet Goal 5 of this
rulemaking to improve Part 26 by eliminating or modifying unnecessary
requirements, while continuing to protect donors' right to accurate and
reliable drug testing.
Section 26.31(d)(4) [Alcohol testing] updates former Sec. 26.24(g)
that contained general requirements for conducting alcohol testing. The
update reflects other changes that have been made in the final rule.
The NRC has amended the former cross-reference to Section 2.7(o)(3) in
Appendix A to Part 26 to refer to Sec. 26.91(a) in Subpart E, which
contains detailed requirements for conducting alcohol testing. The NRC
has added the reference to oral fluids as acceptable specimens for
initial alcohol testing to this section. The basis for adding oral
fluids as acceptable specimens for initial alcohol testing is discussed
with respect to Sec. 26.83 [Specimens to be collected]. The NRC has
changed the BAC at which a confirmatory test is required to 0.02
percent (from 0.04 percent) in the provision for consistency with the
revised alcohol cutoff levels in Sec. 26.99 [Determining the need for
a confirmatory test for alcohol] and Sec. 26.103 [Determining a
confirmed positive test result for alcohol]. The basis for the revised
alcohol cutoff levels is discussed with respect to those sections of
the final rule. The agency has deleted reference to blood testing for
alcohol because the final rule no longer permits donors to request
blood testing for alcohol, as discussed with respect to Sec. 26.83(a)
of the final rule.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.31(d)(5) [Medical conditions] to the
final rule to address circumstances when it may be impossible or
inadvisable to test an individual using the procedures specified in
this part. Circumstances have arisen under Part 26, as well as the
programs of other Federal agencies, when an individual's medical
condition has made it inadvisable to implement testing procedures under
the relevant requirements. Therefore, Sec. 26.31(d)(5)(i) permits
alternative specimen collection and evaluation procedures for rare
instances when it would be difficult or hazardous to the donor to
collect breath, oral fluids, or urine specimens, including, but not
limited to, required post-event testing when an individual has been
seriously injured. Only the MRO is permitted to authorize an
alternative evaluation procedure that may include, but is not limited
to blood testing for alcohol. Section 26.31(d)(5)(ii) clarifies that
necessary medical treatment may not be delayed in order to conduct drug
and alcohol testing. These sections are consistent with the
requirements of other Federal agencies and meet Goal 1 of this
rulemaking to update and enhance the consistency of Part 26 with
advances in other relevant Federal rules and guidelines.
Section 26.31(d)(6) [Limitations of testing] retains and amends
former Section 2.1(d) in Appendix A to Part 26. This former section
stated that specimens collected under Part 26 may only be designated or
approved for testing as described in this part and may not be used for
any other analysis or test without the permission of the tested
individual. The final rule adds examples of the types of analyses and
tests that are prohibited without the donor's written permission.
Although the NRC is not aware of any instances when such unauthorized
testing has occurred in FFD programs under this part, the technology
for performing these analyses and tests has become increasingly
available since the regulation was first promulgated. The NRC has added
these examples to meet Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect the privacy
and other rights (including due process) of individuals who are subject
to Part 26.
Section 26.33 Behavioral Observation
The NRC has added Sec. 26.33 to the final rule to emphasize that
behavioral observation is a required element of FFD programs. The first
sentence of Sec. 26.33 requires behavioral observation of individuals
subject to this subpart. The second sentence retains former Sec.
26.22(a)(3), (a)(4), and (b), which stated that the individuals who
perform behavioral observation must be trained. The third sentence of
the section requires that individuals must report FFD concerns arising
from behavioral observation to the appropriate personnel designated in
the FFD program procedures. The NRC has added these requirements to the
final rule to strengthen the behavioral observation element of FFD
programs by increasing the likelihood that the licensees and other
entities detect and appropriately address impairment and other adverse
behaviors. These changes are consistent with Goal 3 of the rulemaking
to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs.
Section 26.35 Employee Assistance Programs
Section 26.35 amends former Sec. 26.25 [Employee assistance
programs].
Section 26.35(a) retains the former provision without change and
specifies that licensees and other entities shall maintain EAPs that
offer confidential assessment, short-term counseling, referral
services, and treatment monitoring to individuals who have problems
that could adversely affect the individuals' abilities to safely and
competently perform their duties. The provision also requires that the
EAP be designed to achieve early intervention and provide for
confidential assistance.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.35(b) to the final rule to clarify that
licensees and other entities are not required to provide EAP services
to C/V employees, including those who are working at a licensee's or
other entity's facility. With respect to the proposed rule, the final
rule clarifies that licensees and other entities are not required to
provide EAP services to C/V employees whose work location is a
licensee's or other entity's facility. This provision is consistent
with the interpretation of the former rule in item 13.1.4 of NUREG-
1354. The final rule continues to require that C/V employees who are
subject to Part 26 must have access to an EAP, and that licensees and
other entities who rely upon the FFD program of a C/V continue to be
required to ensure that the EAP of a C/V meets the requirements of this
part.
The provision also states that licensees and other entities need
not provide EAP services to individuals who have applied for but have
not yet been granted authorization under Subpart C. Licensees and other
entities are not required to provide an EAP to applicants for
authorization because these individuals would not yet be performing
duties that could affect public health and safety or the common defense
and security. The NRC has added this clarification because applicants
are subject to other requirements under the final rule as discussed
with respect to Sec. 26.4(h).
Section 26.35(c) amends the last sentence of former Sec. 26.25.
The provision emphasizes that the identity and privacy of an individual
who seeks EAP services must be protected and clarifies the conditions
under which EAP personnel may or must violate an individual's
confidentiality. The final rule permits EAP personnel to communicate
information about an individual by name to the licensee or other entity
under only two conditions: (1) If the individual waives the right to
privacy, or (2) EAP personnel determine that the individual's condition
or actions pose or have posed an immediate threat to himself or herself
or others. By clarifying the NRC's intent
[[Page 17026]]
with respect to EAP confidentiality, the provision meets Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the language of the rule because the
former provision has been misinterpreted.
The last sentence of former Sec. 26.25 required confidentiality
for individuals who seek EAP services, except if EAP professionals
determine that the individual's condition ``constitutes a hazard to
himself or herself or others.'' Some licensees have over-interpreted
this phrase and routinely require EAP staff to report individuals who
self-refer for any reason, which is not the intent of this provision.
The NRC is also aware that some individuals who are subject to the rule
have misinterpreted this phrase as meaning that no self-referral to the
EAP would remain confidential and that EAP staff always report self-
referrals to licensee management. This perception appears to be widely
shared, including by individuals who are subject to FFD programs that
have not misinterpreted the former rule and who correctly permit EAP
staff to make the determination of whether to report an individual's
condition to licensee management.
A key purpose of requiring EAPs under Part 26 is to encourage
individuals and their family members to self-refer for any type of
problem that could potentially impair job performance, so that early
intervention may be offered to prevent the problem from adversely
affecting the individuals' job performance. Upon assessment, it is not
uncommon for EAP staff to find that a developing substance abuse
problem is contributing to a financial or family problem for which an
individual has sought assistance. As a result, the EAP provides an
important means to detect and achieve early resolution of developing
substance abuse and other problems, which if left untreated could have
the potential to adversely affect an individual's ability to safely and
competently perform his or her duties. The knowledge or perception
among individuals who are subject to the rule that self-referrals to
the EAP will be reported to management and will routinely result in the
loss of authorization represents a significant barrier to the
effectiveness of the EAP element of FFD programs. Therefore, the
section amends the last sentence of former Sec. 26.25 to clarify that
an individual's use of the licensee's or other entity's EAP must remain
confidential, except in very limited circumstances.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.35(c)(1) to the final rule to prohibit
licensees and other entities from requiring the EAP to routinely report
the names of individuals who self-refer to the EAP and the nature of
assistance the individuals sought. The provision is necessary to
eliminate some licensees' practices of requiring these reports, protect
individuals' privacy, and strengthen the EAP element of FFD programs by
eliminating a former barrier to self-referrals in some FFD programs.
The term ``routinely'' is used to indicate that the final rule permits
EAP personnel to report individuals' names and the nature of their
problems if the individuals have waived the right to privacy in writing
or EAP personnel determine that an individual's condition or actions
pose or have posed an immediate risk to public health and safety or the
common defense and security. The provision does not prohibit EAPs from
reporting program utilization statistics or aggregated data that
characterize the types of problems for which the program has provided
services because this type of information does not compromise
individuals' privacy.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.35(c)(2) to the final rule to provide
further clarity in the language of the rule with respect to the
conditions under which EAP personnel are excepted from the
confidentiality requirement in Sec. 26.35(c) and required to report a
concern about an individual to the licensee or other entity. The NRC is
confident that EAP personnel have the qualifications and training
necessary to continue to make the professional judgments required under
the regulations in these circumstances. However, the final rule
includes more detail with respect to the conditions and actions that an
EAP professional is required to report to ensure that licensees, other
entities, and individuals who are subject to the rule better understand
the intent of the former and final provisions. The final rule requires
EAP personnel to report a concern about a specific individual to
licensee or other entity management only when they have substantive
reasons to believe that an individual's condition or actions pose or
have posed an immediate hazard to themselves or others. The phrase
``substantive reasons to believe'' is used to clarify that casual and/
or contextually appropriate comments made by an individual during a
counseling session are not a sufficient basis for reporting to the
licensee or other entity. For example, an individual's statement that
he or she is concerned about becoming an alcoholic would not constitute
a substantive reason to believe that the individual's condition poses
an immediate hazard. In contrast, this stated concern, in addition to
evidence that the individual's personal relationships, financial
condition, and/or health are suffering from his or her alcohol
consumption, and any indications that the individual has been impaired
while in a work status, would constitute substantive reasons to believe
that the individual's condition poses an immediate hazard and must be
reported.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.35(c)(2)(i) through (iii) to the final
rule to provide several examples of conditions and actions that require
EAP personnel to provide a report about an individual who has self-
referred to licensee or other entity management. Section 26.35(c)(2)(i)
requires reporting if the EAP staff has substantive reasons to believe
that an individual may harm himself or herself or others, including,
but not limited to, plans threatening suicide, radiological sabotage,
or physical violence against others. Section 26.35(c)(2)(ii) requires
reporting if the EAP staff has substantive reasons to believe that an
individual has been impaired from drugs or alcohol while in a work
status and is likely to be impaired in the future, as discussed with
respect to Sec. 26.35(c)(2). Section 26.35(c)(2)(iii) requires
reporting if the EAP staff has substantive reasons to believe that an
individual has committed any of the acts that would require a report to
the NRC under Sec. 26.719(b)(1) through (b)(3), including but not
limited to, the use, sale, distribution, possession, or presence of
illegal drugs, or the consumption or presence of alcohol within a
protected area or while performing duties that require the individual
to be subject to this part. The examples included in these sections are
illustrative, and do not represent an exhaustive list of the conditions
and actions that EAP staff may encounter that would be reported to
licensee or other entity management under the final rule.
For additional clarity, the NRC has added Sec. 26.35(c)(3) to the
final rule to cross-reference the provisions in the final rule that
specify the actions that licensees and other entities would take after
receiving a report from EAP personnel that an individual's condition or
actions pose or have posed an immediate hazard to himself or herself or
others. As discussed with respect to (Sec. Sec. 26.69(d) and 26.77(b)
of the final rule, those provisions require the licensee or other
entity to take immediate action to prevent the individual from
performing any duties that require the individual to be subject to this
part, ensure that a determination of fitness is performed by a
professional who has specific qualifications and
[[Page 17027]]
training to address the nature of the individual's problem, and either
terminate the individual's authorization or ensure that the condition
is resolved before permitting him or her to return to performing duties
under this part.
These changes to former Sec. 26.25 are consistent with Goal 7 of
this rulemaking to protect the privacy and other rights (including due
process) of individuals who are subject to Part 26, as well as Goal 3
to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs.
Section 26.37 Protection of Information
Section 26.37 amends former Sec. 26.29 that contained requirements
for protecting the personal information that must be collected under
Part 26. In general, this section of the final rule groups requirements
related to the protection of personal information that were dispersed
throughout the former rule to aid in locating these requirements in the
final rule. The NRC has moved the records retention requirement in
former Sec. 26.29(a) to Subpart N of the final rule. The NRC has made
these changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in
the organization of the rule.
Section 26.37(a) combines and retains the first sentence of former
Sec. 26.29(a) and the second sentence of former Section 3.1 in
Appendix A to Part 26. The final rule modifies the language of the
proposed rule to require licensees and other entities to establish,
use, and maintain a system of files and procedures that protects the
individuals' privacy. The NRC, after publishing the proposed rule,
recognized the need for more clarity in the language of this provision
to illustrate the NRC's intent. Therefore, this change meets Goal 6 of
the rulemaking to improve clarity in the language of the rule.
Section 26.37(b) amends former Sec. 26.29(b) and divides it into
several sections for clarity. The first sentence of the section amends
the first sentence of former Sec. 26.29(b) that prohibited licensees
and other entities from disclosing personal information collected under
this part to any individuals other than those listed in the sentence.
The final rule continues to permit disclosure of the personal
information to the listed individuals and adds permission for the
licensee or entity to disclose the personal information to others if
the licensee or other entity has obtained a signed release for such a
disclosure from the individual. The NRC has added the permission to
release the personal information to individuals who are not listed in
the section with the written consent of the subject individual because
some licensees have misinterpreted the former requirement as
prohibiting them from releasing the personal information under any
circumstances, except to the parties listed in this section. In some
instances, such failures to release information have inappropriately
inhibited an individual's ability to obtain information that was
necessary for a review or appeal of the licensee's determination that
the individual had violated the FFD policy. Therefore, the NRC has
added the explicit permission for licensees and other entities to
release personal information when an individual consents to the
release, in writing, to meet Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect the
privacy rights and other rights (including due process) of individuals
who are subject to Part 26.
Section 26.37(b)(1) through (b)(8) lists the individuals to whom
licensees and other entities are permitted to release personal
information about an individual. Section 26.37(b)(3), (b)(4), and
(b)(8) retains unchanged the permission for the release of information
to NRC representatives, appropriate law enforcement officials under
court order, and other persons as required by court order. Section
26.37(b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (b)(7) amends the related
requirements contained in former Sec. 26.29(b) to meet Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule. The specific changes to former Sec. 26.29(b) include the
following:
Section 26.37(b)(1) retains the permission for the release of
information to the subject individual and his or her designated
representative. The provision adds requirements for the individual to
designate his or her representative in writing and specify the FFD
matters to be disclosed. The NRC has made these changes in response to
implementation questions from licensees. Licensees have sought guidance
from the NRC related to the way an individual must ``designate'' a
representative.
Section 26.37(b)(2) retains the permission for the release of
information to the licensee's or other entity's MROs. The final rule
also permits the release of information to MRO staff members for
consistency with Sec. 26.183(d), which permits MRO staff to serve some
MRO functions under the direction of the MRO. MRO staff require access
to the personal information in order to perform their duties. The role
of MRO staff in FFD programs is discussed with respect to Sec.
26.183(d) of the final rule.
Section 26.37(b)(5) amends the former reference to licensee
representatives who have a need to have access to the information in
performing assigned duties. The former rule referred only to
individuals who are performing audits of FFD programs. As a result,
some licensees have misinterpreted the former rule as limiting the
release of personal information only to such individuals. This was not
the intent of the provision. Rather, the NRC intended that licensees
and other entities were permitted to release information to their
representatives who must have access to the personal information in
order to perform assigned duties.
With respect to the proposed rule, the final rule modifies proposed
Sec. 26.37(b)(5) to clarify the NRC's intent that the only licensee or
other entity representatives who may have access to the personal
information collected under this part are persons who have a need for
that information to implement the requirements of the rule. The NRC
made this change to provide greater assurance that personal
information, such as medical records that an individual has submitted
to the MRO to document prescription medication for a ``shy bladder''
situation, is not released to persons who do not have assigned duties
under the FFD program that specifically require access to that
information. Reviewing officials, MROs, SAEs, and other FFD program
personnel, as well as auditors, require access to some personal
information about individuals in order to perform their assigned duties
to implement the FFD program. Human resources personnel may need to
know that an individual has violated the FFD policy, if the licensee or
other entity terminates an individual's employment in response to an
FFD policy violation, but do not need access to the personal
information collected about the individual under the FFD program to
carry out the process of terminating the individual's employment. The
NRC has determined that this additional clarification is necessary to
provide further protection of the privacy of persons who are subject to
the rule.
Section 26.37(b)(6) and (b)(7) amends the portion of former Sec.
26.29(b) that referred to ``persons deciding matters on review or
appeal.'' The NRC has amended the provision in response to
implementation questions from licensees, including whether the rule
covers persons deciding matters in judicial proceedings or only the
internal appeals process specified in former Sec. 26.28 [Appeals], as
well as whether
[[Page 17028]]
information could be released in a judicial proceeding that the subject
individual did not initiate. The final rule clarifies that the
permission includes individuals who are presiding in a judicial or
administrative proceeding, but only if the subject individual in Sec.
26.37(b)(6) initiates the proceeding. Section 26.37(b)(7) covers
``persons deciding matters under review in Sec. 26.39'' [Review
process for fitness-for-duty policy violations], as discussed with
respect to that section. The NRC has made these changes to meet Goal 6
of this rulemaking relating to improving clarity in the organization
and language of the rule.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.37(c) to the final rule to require the
disclosure of relevant information to licensees and other entities,
including C/Vs, and their authorized representatives who have a
legitimate need for the information and a signed release from an
individual who is seeking authorization under this part. This provision
clarifies former Sec. 26.29(b) because some licensees have
misinterpreted the former provision as prohibiting the release of
information to C/Vs who have licensee-approved FFD programs and conduct
suitable inquiries on behalf of licensees and other entities. The NRC
has made this change to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve
clarity in the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.37(d) through (f) retains several requirements related
to the protection of information in the former rule but moves them into
this section for organizational clarity. Section 26.37(d) combines
requirements in former Sec. 26.29(b) and Section 3.2 in Appendix A to
Part 26 as they relate to an individual's access to records that are
necessary for a review of an FFD policy violation. However, the final
rule modifies the language of the proposed rule by specifying that it
is the FFD program that is required to promptly provide all requested
records. The NRC has made this change to meet Goal 6 of the rulemaking
to improve clarity in the language of the rule. The final rule also
adds ``collection site'' and ``SAE'' to the list of entities who must
provide records to an individual or his or her designated
representative. The final rule also expands the proposed language to
specify the types of records that must be provided. The examples given
for the types of records that must be provided to the individual are
illustrative, but are not comprehensive of all the types of records
that must be provided upon request. The agency has made these changes
in response to public comment, to clarify the rule language, to ensure
that individuals and representatives can verify the accuracy of FFD
records, and to meet Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect the privacy
and other rights (including due process) of individuals subject to Part
26. Section 26.37(e) and (f) retains former Section 3.1 in Appendix A
to Part 26 and the last sentence of former Sec. 26.29(b),
respectively.
Section 26.39 Review Process for Fitness-for-Duty Policy Violations
Section 26.39 amends former Sec. 26.28 and separates it into
several sections. The change from the former section heading eliminates
the implication that the internal management review is a legal
proceeding. The agency has added several requirements to clarify and
strengthen individuals' rights during the review, consistent with Goal
7 of this rulemaking, as described in the following paragraphs.
Former Sec. 26.28 required that individuals who are subject to the
rule have an opportunity for a management review of a determination
that the individual has violated the licensee's or other entity's FFD
policy. Section 26.39(a) retains the requirement that the review must
be impartial and adds a requirement that the review must be objective.
The NRC has added the requirement for an objective review because some
licensees have permitted the same individuals who were involved in the
initial determination that an individual violated the FFD policy to
provide the review that was required under former Sec. 26.28. The
impartiality of individuals who are reviewing their own decisions is
questionable and calls into question the effectiveness of the review
process. Therefore, the requirement for the review to be both impartial
and objective emphasizes the NRC's intent that the review process be
effective.
In keeping with revisions to several other sections that are
intended to counter subversion of the testing process, Sec. 26.39(a)
extends this opportunity to request a review to all FFD violations,
including, but not limited to, violations based upon confirmed
positive, adulterated, or substituted, or invalid test results. The
section also clarifies that applicants for authorization must be given
the opportunity for a review. Experience with implementing this section
of Part 26 has indicated that some licensees did not provide a review
process to individuals who tested positive on pre-access tests.
However, the factors that could produce false positive test results
among licensee and C/V employees (e.g., administrative or testing
errors) are equally likely to occur during pre-access testing of
applicants for authorization. If applicants are not provided with a
review process, it is possible that some of them would be effectively
barred from the industry based on test results erroneously determined
to be a violation of the licensee's or other entity's FFD policy.
Providing applicants with the opportunity to request a review also
enhances program credibility.
Section 26.39(b) specifies that FFD procedures must describe the
contents and purpose of the notice that licensees and other entities
would be required to provide to an individual who has violated an FFD
policy. The provision also requires that the procedures must state that
the individual may submit additional relevant information as part of
the review process. This clarification is necessary because experience
with implementing former Sec. 26.28 has indicated that individuals do
not understand the purpose of the review process and their associated
rights in some cases.
Section 26.39(c) specifies that the procedure must ensure that the
individual who conducts the review is not associated with the
administration of the FFD program. The final rule modifies the proposed
rule by requiring that only one representative of the licensee's or
other entity's management shall conduct the review. The final rule
allows only one individual to conduct the review in response to a
public comment that stated that the review process required by this
section should be consistent with that required by 10 CFR 73.56(e)
(personnel access authorization) because this would simplify licensee
procedures and would improve the consistency between FFD requirements
and access authorization requirements. In specifying that the reviewer
may not be anyone associated with the administration of the FFD
program, including anyone who made the initial determination that the
individual violated the FFD policy, the final rule strengthens the
impartiality and objectivity of the review process in order to further
enhance individuals' rights. The NRC has made these changes to meet
Goal 3 of the rulemaking to increase the effectiveness and efficiency
of FFD programs, and Goal 7 to protect the privacy and other rights
(including due process) of individuals who are subject to Part 26.
Section 26.39(d) adds a requirement that any records associated
with the FFD policy violation must be deleted or corrected, as
appropriate, if the policy violation decision is overturned. This
requirement is necessary because the final rule permits licensees and
other entities to share and rely on information
[[Page 17029]]
gathered by other Part 26 programs to a greater extent than is
currently possible. Therefore, incorrect records related to an FFD
policy violation could significantly inhibit an individual from further
employment under a Part 26 program if this information is transmitted
to other licensees and entities who are considering whether to grant
authorization to an individual. The requirement to delete or correct
any records associated with an FFD policy violation that has been
overturned will protect individuals from such potential adverse
consequences.
Section 26.39(e) of the final rule amends the last sentence of
former Sec. 26.28. This sentence stated that licensees and other
entities are not required to provide a review procedure to C/V
employees and applicants when the C/V is administering its own drug and
alcohol testing. The final rule amends the former paragraph in response
to implementation questions from licensees who have asked whether the
former provision excuses them from providing a review process for C/V
employees at any time, including situations when the FFD policy
violation was determined as a result of testing conducted by the
licensee. The final rule revises this sentence to clarify that the
licensee or other entity need not provide a review process if the C/V's
drug and alcohol testing program identified the FFD violation to be
reviewed. If the licensee's drug and alcohol testing determined the FFD
violation, the licensee is required to provide the impartial and
objective review. The final rule modifies the proposed rule to state
that the licensee need not provide a review procedure to a C/V
subcontractor when the FFD policy violation was determined under a C/
V's program. These changes are consistent with Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
Section 26.41 Audits and Corrective Action
Section 26.41 of the final rule renames and amends former Sec.
26.80 [Audits]. The NRC has added the phrase ``and corrective action''
to the section heading to emphasize the NRC's intent that licensees and
other entities must ensure that corrective actions are taken in
response to any adverse findings resulting from an audit. In addition,
the final rule reorganizes the audit requirements in former Sec.
26.80, and moves several audit and inspection requirements into this
section that were addressed in Appendix A to Part 26. The NRC has made
these changes to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in
the organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.41(a) [General] of the final rule amends the last
sentence in former Sec. 26.80(a). This sentence stated that licensees
retain responsibility for the effectiveness of C/V programs and the
implementation of appropriate corrective action. The final rule revises
this requirement to include HHS-certified laboratories, as well as any
C/V FFD program elements and FFD programs that the licensee or other
entity relies upon, consistent with the intent of the former
requirement. The final rule has added a phrase to the proposed rule
that requires licensees to be responsible for the continuing
effectiveness of any FFD program services a subcontractor provides to
the C/V. The NRC has made these changes to meet Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the language of the rule.
Section 26.41(b) [FFD program] of the final rule amends the
required audit frequency in former Sec. 26.80(a). (Other provisions of
Sec. 26.41 address the other requirements contained in former Sec.
26.80(a), as discussed with respect to the sections of the final rule
that address those topics.) The final rule decreases the former 12-
month FFD program audit frequency to a nominal 24-month frequency,
which grants a petition for rulemaking (PRM-26-1) submitted by Virginia
Power on December 30, 1993. Experience with implementing Part 26 has
shown that annual audits of the entire FFD program are unnecessary to
ensure continued program effectiveness and, therefore, place an
unnecessary burden on those entities who are subject to the rule. The
NRC decreased the audit frequency to 24 months to relieve this burden
and to be consistent with the NRC's schedule for inspecting FFD
programs. The change is consistent with Goal 5 of this rulemaking to
improve Part 26 by eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements.
Although the final rule decreases the required audit frequency,
licensees and other entities are required to monitor program
performance indicators and operating experience, consistent with a
performance-based approach, and audit FFD program elements more
frequently than every 24 months as needed. In determining the need for
more frequent audits, the final rule requires licensees and other
entities to consider FFD performance, including but not limited to, the
frequency, nature, and severity of discovered problems, testing errors,
personnel or procedural changes, and previous audit findings. The
provision is intended to promote performance-based rather than
compliance-based audit activities and clarify that programs must be
audited following a significant change in personnel, procedures, or
equipment as soon as reasonably practicable. The NRC recognizes that
FFD programs evolve and new issues and problems continue to arise.
Turnover of FFD program personnel and contracted services personnel,
such as specimen collectors, exacerbates this concern. Licensee audits
have identified problems that were associated in some way with
personnel changes, such as new personnel not understanding their duties
or procedures, the implications of actions that they took or did not
take, or changes in processes. The purpose of these focused audits is
to ensure that changes in personnel, procedures, or equipment do not
adversely affect the operation of the particular program element or
function in question. Accordingly, the audit requirement ensures that
any programmatic problems that may result from significant changes in
personnel, procedures, or equipment are detected and corrected on a
timely basis. By requiring more frequent audits of FFD program
performance that may require closer monitoring than a nominal 24-month
frequency would provide, these changes meet Goal 3 of this rulemaking
to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD programs.
Section 26.41(c) [C/Vs and HHS-certified laboratories] of the final
rule amends the audit and inspection requirements that are contained in
the second sentence of former Sec. 26.80(a) and the third sentence of
Section 2.7(m) in Appendix A to Part 26, as follows:
Section 26.41(c)(1) further amends the requirement in former Sec.
26.80(a) for annual audits of C/V FFD programs and program elements and
HHS-certified laboratories. The former annual audit frequency is
retained only for those portions of C/V FFD programs whose personnel
work off site and are not under the daily supervision of FFD program
personnel. The activities of C/V personnel who work on site and are
under the daily supervision of FFD program personnel are audited under
Sec. 26.41(b). Retention of the annual audit requirement for C/Vs
whose personnel work off site meets Goal 3 of this rulemaking to
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FD programs. The provision
is necessary to ensure that the services provided continue to be
effective because other means of monitoring their effectiveness, such
as daily oversight, are unavailable. The section also retains the
annual audit requirement for HHS-certified laboratories. The NRC has
retained this audit frequency because of the key role
[[Page 17030]]
the laboratories play in the overall effectiveness of Part 26 programs.
Retention of these annual audit requirements in the section denies the
petition for rulemaking (PRM-26-1) submitted by Virginia Power on
December 30, 1993.
Section 26.41(c)(2) relaxes some requirements related to annual
audits and inspections of the HHS-certified laboratories that licensees
and other entities rely upon for drug testing services. The final rule
permits licensees and other entities who are subject to the rule to
rely upon the inspections of HHS laboratories that are performed for
HHS-certification reviews and no longer requires licensees and other
entities to audit the effectiveness of services that HHS inspectors
review. The former rule contained a number of requirements that are
inconsistent with the requirements for drug testing under other
Federally mandated programs. For example, the former rule permitted
donors to request confirmatory alcohol testing of a blood specimen at
an HHS-certified laboratory, which other Federal agencies do not
permit. Also, some of the cutoff levels established in the former rule
are higher, in the case of testing for marijuana metabolite, or lower,
in the case of testing for opiates, than those of other Federal
agencies. These programmatic discrepancies have made licensee audits of
HHS-certified laboratories necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the
unique drug and alcohol testing services required for Part 26 programs
because HHS inspections do not address these services. The final rule
eliminates the majority of these discrepancies. Therefore, the annual
audits of HHS-certified laboratories by licensees that have been
necessary under the former rule would be redundant under the final
rule, except in certain conditions described below. The NRC has made
these changes to meet Goal 5 of this rulemaking to improve Part 26 by
eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements.
Section 26.41(c)(2) continues to require licensees and other
entities to conduct annual audits of any services provided to the
licensee or other entity that the annual HHS-certification review did
not address. The NRC has retained this annual audit requirement because
Sec. 26.31(d) retains the permission in the former rule for licensees
and other entities to establish lower cutoff levels and test for drugs
in addition to those for which testing is required under this part. If
a licensee or other entity chooses to implement more stringent cutoff
levels or a broader panel of drugs than required under the final rule,
the licensee or other entity is required to ensure that annual audits
of the HHS-certified services related to those cutoff levels and drug
tests are performed.
The NRC has added the last sentence of Sec. 26.41(c)(2) to clarify
the scope of the former audit requirements. The final rule does not
require licensees and other entities to audit organizations that do not
routinely provide FFD services to the licensee or other entity, such as
local hospitals or a substance abuse treatment facility. It is
unnecessary to audit these organizations because the FFD program would
use their services infrequently, there would be a reasonable
expectation of quality, and weaknesses in these services could be
identified through other means. For example, Sec. 26.187 [Substance
abuse expert] requires the SAE to monitor the substance abuse treatment
of individuals who require it and the SAE would have the qualifications
and information necessary to assess the quality of the treatment
services an individual receives. The SAE has the authority to seek
other services on behalf of the FFD program if he or she identifies
weaknesses in a treatment program. Therefore, the NRC has made these
changes to meet Goal 5 of this rulemaking to improve Part 26 by
eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements.
Section 26.41(d) [Contracts] of the final rule incorporates and
amends the requirements of former Section 2.7(m) in Appendix A to Part
26 and others that addressed contractual relationships to permit
licensees and other entities access to the HHS-certified laboratories
for the purposes of conducting the audits and inspections required
under the rule. The portions of former Section 2.7(m) in Appendix A to
Part 26 that related to NRC inspections of HHS-certified laboratories
have been moved to Sec. 26.821 [Inspections] in Subpart O
[Inspections, violations, and penalties] of the final rule, consistent
with Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization
and language of the rule.
Section 26.41(d)(1) amends the second sentence of former Section
2.7(m) in Appendix A to Part 26. The former section required licensee
contracts with HHS-certified laboratories for drug testing and alcohol
confirmatory testing, as well as contracts for collection site
services, to permit the licensee to conduct unannounced inspections.
The final rule retains the former requirement with respect to HHS-
certified laboratories and expands it to require that contracts with
any C/V (which would include collection services providers) must permit
the licensee or other entity to conduct audits at any time, including
unannounced times, and to review all information and documentation that
is reasonably relevant to the audits. The provision extends the former
requirement to any C/V with whom the licensee or other entity contracts
for FFD program services to enhance the effectiveness of the licensees'
and other entities' audits should unannounced audits appear to be
necessary. For example, a licensee or other entity may receive
allegations that an offsite C/V is falsifying records or that a
contract MRO or SAE is using drugs. The licensee or other entity may
determine that an unannounced audit would provide the most effective
means to investigate these allegations. This provision ensures that the
licensee's or other entity's contract with the C/V permits the
unannounced audit as well as access to any information necessary to
conduct the audit. Therefore, the NRC has made this change to meet Goal
3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of FFD
programs.
The NRC had added Sec. 26.41(d)(2) to ensure that licensees' and
other entities' contracts with C/Vs and HHS-certified laboratories
permit the licensee or other entity to obtain copies of and take away
any documents that auditors may need to assure that the C/V, its
subcontractors, or the HHS-certified laboratory are performing their
functions properly and that staff and procedures meet applicable
requirements. This provision responds to several incidents when parties
under contract to licensees did not permit Part 26 auditors to remove
documents from a premises of a C/V that were necessary to document
audit findings, develop corrective actions, and ensure the
effectiveness of the corrective actions. Therefore, the new requirement
meets Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of FFD programs. The provision permits HHS-certified
laboratories to reasonably limit the use and dissemination of the
documentation that auditors copy and take off site. This change meets
Goal 7 of this rulemaking to protect the privacy of individuals who are
subject to Part 26 and protects the trade secrets of HHS-certified
laboratories who are subject to auditing under the final rule.
Section 26.41(d)(3) amends the third sentence of former Section
2.7(m) in Appendix A to Part 26. This sentence required licensees and
other entities to carry out inspections and evaluations of the
procedural aspects of an HHS-certified laboratory drug testing
operations before awarding a contract to the laboratory. The final rule
adds a cross-reference to Sec. 26.41(g). Section
[[Page 17031]]
26.41(g) permits licensees and other entities to forego the otherwise
required pre-award evaluation under certain specific circumstances, as
discussed with respect to that section.
Section 26.41(e) [Conduct of audits] of the final rule retains the
requirements in former Sec. 26.80(b).
Section 26.41(f) [Audit results] of the final rule retains the
portion of former Sec. 26.80(c) that required licensees and other
entities to document audit findings and recommendations, report them to
senior management, and document corrective actions taken in response to
any identified adverse conditions. The final rule adds two
requirements. The second sentence of Sec. 26.41(f) specifies the
required content of audit reports, including identification of any
conditions that are adverse to the proper performance of the FFD
program, the cause of the condition(s), and recommended corrective
actions. The third sentence of the section requires licensees and other
entities to review the audit findings and take corrective actions,
including reauditing of indicated deficient areas, to preclude, within
reason, repetition of the condition. The final rule adds these two
sentences for consistency with Criterion XVI in Appendix B to 10 CFR
Part 50 [Domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities]
to indicate that the corrective action programs of licensees and other
entities must include FFD audit reports. Some licensees have handled
FFD audit reports outside of their normal corrective action programs
that address other conditions adverse to quality. As a result, some
corrective actions for FFD program weaknesses have not been timely or
effective. Therefore, the final rule adds these requirements to meet
Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency
of FFD programs.
The NRC has deleted the last sentence of former Sec. 26.80(c) that
referred to the requirements for auditing HHS-certified laboratories in
Appendix A to Part 26 because it is redundant with Sec. 26.41(c). The
NRC has made this change to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve
clarity in the organization of the rule.
Section 26.41(g) [Sharing of audits] of the final rule responds to
licensees' implementation questions related to the third and fourth
sentences in former Sec. 26.80(a) that permitted licensees and other
entities to accept audits of C/Vs that other FFD programs conduct. The
section clarifies the former permission to accept and rely on others'
audits in response to implementation questions that the NRC has
received from licensees with respect to the sharing of audits, as
documented in Section 17 of NUREG-1354, and items 11.4 and 11.5 of
NUREG-1385, ``Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry: Responses
to Implementation Questions.''
Section 26.41(g) amends the former provision to incorporate
specific permission for licensees and other entities to jointly conduct
audits as well as rely on one another's audits. The NRC has also added
a reference to HHS-certified laboratories to indicate the applicability
of these permissions to licensees' and other entities' audits of HHS-
certified laboratories. These changes are consistent with the guidance
issued by the NRC in the documents referenced above and current
licensee practices. Therefore, the NRC has made these changes to meet
Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and
language of the rule.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.41(g)(1) and (g)(2) to the final rule to
require licensees and other entities to identify any areas that were
not covered by a shared or accepted audit and ensure that any unique
services used by the licensee or other entity that were not covered by
the shared audit are audited. For example, an FFD program may use lower
cutoff levels for drug testing than the FFD program(s) that conducted a
shared audit with the result that the shared audit did not address the
HHS-certified laboratories' procedures for testing at the first FFD
program's lower cutoff levels. In this case, the first FFD program is
not permitted to rely on the shared audit with respect to the lower
cutoff levels and is required to ensure that the HHS-certified
laboratories' procedures for testing at the lower cutoff levels are
audited separately (or in conjunction with other FFD programs that use
the same cutoff levels). These provisions are consistent with the
guidance issued by the NRC in the documents referenced above and
current licensee practices. Therefore, the NRC has made these changes
to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the
organization and language of the rule.
Section 26.41(g)(3) retains the portion of the third sentence of
former Sec. 26.80(a) that stated that licensees and other entities
need not re-audit the same C/V for the same period of time. This
provision extends this permission to audits of HHS-certified
laboratories, which is consistent with the guidance issued by the NRC
in the documents referenced above and current licensee practices.
Therefore, the NRC has made this change to meet Goal 6 of this
rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and language of the
rule.
Section 26.41(g)(4) retains the fourth sentence of former Sec.
26.80(a). This provision requires licensees and other entities to
retain copies of the shared audit reports.
The NRC has added Sec. 26.41(g)(5) to the final rule. The
provision permits licensees and other entities to immediately obtain
drug testing services from another HHS-certified laboratory, subject to
certain conditions, if the laboratory used by the licensee or other
entity loses its certification. Within 3 months of obtaining services
from the replacement laboratory, the section requires the licensee or
other entity to ensure that an audit is conducted of any aspects of the
laboratory's services that the licensee or other entity use that have
not been audited within the past 12 months by another licensee or
entity who is subject to this subpart. This provision enhances the
effectiveness of FFD programs by ensuring that drug testing will not be
interrupted or delayed if an HHS-certified laboratory loses its
certification as some licensees have experienced. The reliability of
drug testing services provided by the replacement laboratory is ensured
by the auditing and inspection activities of other licensees and
entities who have been using the services of the replacement
laboratory, as well as the audit conducted by the licensee or other
entity of any services that have not been audited by other licensees or
entities who are subject to this part. The NRC has made this change to
meet Goal 3 of this rulemaking to improve the effectiveness and
efficiency of FFD programs.
Subpart C--Granting and Maintaining Authorization
Throughout Subpart C, the final rule makes minor clarifications to
the proposed rule based on public comment, to accommodate conforming
changes, and to meet Goal 6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in
the organization and language of the rule.
One clarification that the final rule makes in numerous sections in
this subpart is to state that licensees or other entities subject to
this subpart shall ``ensure'' that a requirement under this subpart has
been met. This language differs from that of the proposed rule, which
stated that the licensee or other entity shall explicitly perform the
activity (i.e., obtain, review, conduct, complete) to meet the
requirement. For example, in Sec. 26.55(a)(1), the proposed rule
stated that the licensee or other entity shall ``obtain and review a
self-disclosure.'' The final rule states that the licensee or other
entity shall ``ensure that a self-disclosure has been obtained
[[Page 17032]]
and reviewed.'' This modified language clarifies the NRC's intent that
licensees or other entities may rely on other entities to assist in
performing the activities necessary to meet the requirements of this
subpart. For example, many licensees rely on contractors to conduct the
suitable inquiry required under Sec. 26.63. However, the final rule
retains the language of the proposed rule in Sec. 26.69(b) for the
reasons discussed with respect to that paragraph. In another change
from the proposed rule text, the NRC has eliminated the term ``non-
negative'' and replaced it with the phrase ``positive, adulterated, or
substituted'' for the reasons discussed with respect to Sec. 26.5
[Definitions].
The final rule also makes more substantive changes to the proposed
rule in this subpart because of public comment or to improve clarity in
the organization and language of the rule. The substantive changes in
this subpart can be found in Sec. Sec. 26.51; 26.53(d) through (i);
26.57(b); 26.61(c) and (d); 26.63(c), (c)(3), (d) and (f); 26.65(c),
(c)(2), (d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(ii), (e) and (f); and 26.69(c), (c)(1) and
(e)(1). These changes are discussed in detail below. However, other
than the changes mentioned above, the final rule adopts the provisions
of this subpart as proposed, without change.
Section 26.51 Applicability
The final rule amends Sec. 26.51 of the proposed rule to describe
the applicability of the subpart. The NRC has changed the heading of
this section from ``Purpose'' to ``Applicability'' because the NRC has
revised the content of the section to specify the licensees, entities,
and categories of individuals to whom the requirements Subpart C apply
by using cross-references to the relevant paragraphs in Sec. Sec.
26.3 [Scope] and 26.4 [FFD program applicability to categories of
individuals]. The NRC made this change in response to public comments
requesting this clarification in the rule text and to meet Goal 6 of
this rulemaking.
Section 26.53 General Provisions
The NRC has added Sec. 26.53 to the final rule to provide an
overview of the requirements and process for determining when
individuals may be granted and maintain authorization. With respect to
the proposed rule, paragraph (e) has been added to this section to
specify the requirements for relying on the FFD program of a C/V when
granting or maintaining authorization. Paragraph (f) specifies that
licensees and other entities may not rely on FFD programs under Subpart
K [FFD programs for Construction] of this rule to meet the requirements
of this subpart. The reasons for adding these paragraphs are discussed
with respect to the specific paragraphs.
Section 26.53(a) of the final rule introduces four new terms to
Part 26: ``Initial authorization,'' ``authorization update,''
``authorization reinstatement,'' and ``authorization with potentially
disqualifying FFD information.'' The final rule uses these terms to
describe categories of requirements for granting authorization. These
categories are based on whether an applicant has previously held
authorization under Part 26 and the length of time that has elapsed
after the individual's last period of authorization ended, and are
described in Sec. 26.55 [Initial authorization], Sec. 26.57
[Authorization update], Sec. 26.59 [Authorization reinstatement], and
Sec. 26.69 [Authorization with potentially disqualifying fitness-for-
duty information]. Section 26.53(a) directs licensees or other entities
to use the criteria for granting authorization to individuals found in
Sec. Sec. 26.55, 26.57, 26.59, or 26.69, depending on which of these
sections applies to the individual seeking authorization. The former
rule in Sec. 26.27 [Management actions and sanctions to be imposed]
discussed actions that the licensee must take before initially granting
access or assigning specified duties to an individual, but did not use
the concepts of ``initial authorization,'' ``authorization update,''
``authorization reinstatement,'' or ``authorization with potentially
disqualifying FFD information.'' The final rule uses these concepts to
focus the requirements for authorization more precisely on whether the
individual has an established record (i.e. authorization history) in
the industry. The NRC also uses these concepts to specify the amount of
original information-gathering activities licensees or other entities
are required to perform, according to whether previous FFD programs
have collected information about the individual. In addition, the NRC
uses similar concepts in access authorization requirements found in 10
CFR 73.56 [Personnel access authorization requirements for nuclear
power plants] and access authorization orders issued by the agency to
nuclear power plant licensees. The NRC has incorporated these concepts
into Part 26 to increase the consistency between the related
regulations in accordance with Goal 4 of this rulemaking.
Section 26.53(b) of the final rule defines the meaning of the term
``interruption'' which is used in Sec. 26.57 and Sec. 26.59 to refer
to the interval of time between periods during which an individual
holds authorization under Part 26. Licensees and other entities shall
calculate an interruption in authorization as the total number of days
falling between the day the individual's last period of authorization
ended and the day the licensee or other entity grants authorization to
the individual. Section 26.53(b) also specifies that if potentially
disqualifying FFD information is disclosed or discovered about an
individual, licensees and other entities must implement the applicable
requirements in Sec. 26.69 in order to grant or maintain an
individual's authorization, rather than relying on the requirements in
Sec. Sec. 26.55, 26.57, or 26.59.
Section 26.53(c) of the final rule references the FFD training
requirements in Sec. 26.29 [Training] and the fatigue training
requirements in Sec. 26.203(c) [Training and examinations] to clarify
that all individuals who are subject to Subpart C must meet the
applicable requirements for initial or refresher FFD training, as
appropriate, before the licensee or other entity may grant
authorization to the individuals. This provision references the
training requirements for organizational clarity because they apply to
the authorization process. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed
rule, stakeholders requested that the regulation present requirements
in the order in which they would apply to licensees' and other
entities' FFD processes. The NRC has added this paragraph to meet Goal
6 of this rulemaking to improve clarity in the organization and
language of the rule.
Section 26.53(d) of the final rule permits licensees and other
entities to rely on other licensees' or entities' FFD programs and
program elements to meet the requirements of this subpart for granting
and maintaining authorization. Section 26.53(d) expands upon a section
of the former rule that similarly permitted licensees and other
entities to accept and rely on other FFD programs and program elements.
Specifically, former Sec. 26.24(a)(1) permitted licensees to accept
results from drug and alcohol tests that were administered under
another Part 26 program within the past 60 days. Consistent with the
principle of permitting licensees to accept and rely on other Part 26
programs in their authorization decisions, guidance contained in NUREG-
1385, ``Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry: Responses to
Implementation Questions,'' also indicates that licensees may
``accept'' an authorization granted by a previous licensee for
individuals
[[Page 17033]]
who transfer between licensees with only a short break in
authorization.
The final rule substantially increases the specificity of the
requirements that licensees or other entities must meet for granting
authorization and establishes detailed minimum standards that all
programs must meet. The agency designed these detailed minimum
standards to address recent changes in industry practices that have
resulted in a more transient workforce. Because the FFD programs of
licensees and other entities will be substantially more consistent than
in the past under these detailed standards, permitting licensees and
other entities to rely on other FFD programs to meet the rule's
requirements is reasonable and appropriate. Section 26.53(d) eliminates
unnecessary redundancies in the steps required to grant authorization
to an individual who is transferring from one FFD program to another,
consistent with Goal 5 of this rulemaking to improve Part 26 by
eliminating or modifying unnecessary requirements. With respect to the
proposed rule, the final rule specifies that the receiving FFD program
shall ensure that the program elements to which the individual is
subject under the transferring FFD program remain current. The NRC has
made this change to the proposed rule in recognition of the need for
additional consistency between the final rule and the access
authorization requirements. Therefore, this change helps meet Goal 4 of
this rulemaking to improve consistency between FFD requirements and
access authorization requirements established in 10 CFR 73.56, as
supplemented by orders to nuclear power plant licensees dated January
7, 2003.
In response to public comment, the final rule adds paragraph (e) to
Sec. 26.53 to clarify the relationship between licensees' and other
entities' FFD programs and those of C/Vs. Section 26.53(e) retains the
permission in former Sec. 26.23 [Contractors and vendors] for
licensees to rely upon C/Vs' FFD programs that have been formally
reviewed and approved by the licensee. The paragraph also permits the
licensees and other entities in Sec. 26.3(a) through (c) to rely on a
C/V's FFD program elements that meet the requirements of Part 26. For
example, some C/Vs ensure that their employees receive initial and
refresher FFD training so that, when the employee is assigned to work
on a contract that requires him or her to have unescorted access to a
nuclear power plant protected area, it is unnecessary for the licensee
to provide FFD training to the C/V's employee in order to grant
unescorted access to this individual. The final rule adds this
permission to rely on a C/V's FFD program elements to codify a long-
standing industry practice that has been endorsed by the NRC and to
provide clarity in the language of the rule.
Section 26.53(e)(1) permits a C/V to grant, maintain, deny, or
unfavorably terminate an individual's authorization under the C/V's FFD
program. As defined in Sec. 26.5, granting authorization in this case
means that a C/V has determined that the individual has met the
requirements in this subpart and is eligible to have the types of
access and perform the duties specified in Sec. 26.4. Maintaining
authorization under a C/V's FFD program means that the individual
continues to meet the requirements of this subpart and be eligible to
perform the duties specified in Sec. 26.4. However, the second
sentence of Sec. 26.53(e)(1) retains the intent of the provisions in
former Sec. 26.23 that placed responsibility on licensees for ensuring
that individuals who are ``performing activities within the scope of
this part'' meet the requirements in Part 26. However, the final rule
updates the terminology used to convey this intent and adds cross-
references to other sections of the rule for clarity and consistency
with other rule changes.
Section 26.53(e)(2) further clarifies the relationship between
authorization under a C/V's FFD program and authorization under the FFD
programs of licensees and other entities in Sec. 26.3(a) through (c).
This provision addresses circumstances when a C/V's FFD program
determines that an individual does not meet the requirements of this
subpart to be granted or maintain authorization and denies or
unfavorably terminates the individual's authorization under the C/V's
program. The rule requires that if the C/V's FFD program denies or
unfavorably terminates the authorization of an individual who is
performing the duties for a licensee that are listed in the specified
sections of Sec. 26.4, the C/V must inform the affected licensee or
other entity of the denial or unfavorable termination. In this case,
the licensee or other entity shall, on the day the licensee receives
the information from the C/V, deny or unfavorably terminate the
i