ML14218A861

Regulatory Analysis, Draft Regulatory Guide DG-5036, Fitness for Duty Programs at New Reactor Construction Sites

ML14218A861
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/18/2014
From:	Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
To:
Jervey R
Shared Package
ML14205A134	List: ML14205A141 ML14218A861
References
DG-5036
Download: ML14218A861 (3)

Text

REGULATORY ANALYSIS DRAFT REGULATORY GUIDE DG-5036, FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAMS AT NEW REACTOR CONSTRUCTION SITES (Proposed New Regulatory Guide)

1. Statement of the Problem The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuing a new guide, Draft Regulatory Guide (DG) 5036, to provide a common understanding of the key attributes forming a Fitness for Duty (FFD) program for construction. Through the regulations in 10 CFR Part 26, Fitness for Duty Programs, the NRC requires certain individuals involved in the construction of new commercial power reactors to be fit-for-duty.

These requirements are prescriptive in a number of areas, such as drug and alcohol testing; however, in other areas, such as those associated with 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart K, FFD Program for Construction, the regulations contain less prescriptive, performance-based requirements. The lack of prescriptive regulations in Subpart K enables licensees, applicants, and other entities to develop, implement, and/or maintain site-specific (or fleet-wide) FFD programs in a manner that best suits their needs while still meeting regulatory requirements.

However, this flexibility, without regulatory guidance, can challenge consistent and effective rule implementation. For example, a licensee can implement sanctions for FFD policy violations that are markedly more or less severe than sanctions for an equivalent violation at another licensees construction site.

Currently, there is no guidance available. Applicants need guidance while developing, implementing, and maintaining their construction-related FFD programs to meet Subpart K requirements. Licensees also need this guidance to assist in the transition from an FFD program during the construction of a reactor to an FFD program for an operating reactor. The NRC staff needs this guidance to make NRC reviews more efficient and effective. Members of the public could use this guidance to better understand how the industry can meet the Commissions FFD requirements.

2. Objective The objective of this draft regulatory guidance is to provide licensees, applicants, entities specified in 10 CFR 26.3(c), and contractors/vendors (C/V) specified in 10 CFR 26.3(d), who implement FFD programs with information that they could use to develop, implement, and maintain an FFD Program for Construction. The draft regulatory guide also provides NRC staff and the public with information to help the staff conduct its inspections and reviews and to help the public understand how affected entities comply with the NRCs FFD regulations.

3. Alternative Approaches The NRC staff considered the following alternative approaches:

1. Do not issue new Regulatory Guide

2. Issue new Regulatory Guide

Alternative 1: Do Not Issue a New Regulatory Guide Under this alternative, the NRC would not issue additional guidance. If NRC does not take action, there would not be any changes in costs or benefit to the public, licensees or NRC.

However, the no-action alternative would not address identified problems with the absence of NRC guidance relating to FFD requirements for persons conducting NRC-regulated activities related to the construction of new reactors. This alternative provides a baseline condition from which any other alternatives would be assessed.

Alternative 2: Issue a New Regulatory Guide Under this approach, the NRC would issue a regulatory guide, taking into consideration the full or partial endorsement of NEI 06-06, Fitness for Duty Program Guidance for New Nuclear Power Plant Construction Sites, revision 6, dated April 2013. This approach would provide substantial benefit for the commercial nuclear power industry and NRC staff. One benefit is that industry stakeholders would lead the development of guidance that provides at least one method of meeting the Commissions regulations and is acceptable to the staff and industry stakeholders. This would enhance consistency, effective rule implementation, and solidify industry support of proposed guidance. This option also would enable industry representatives the opportunity to propose and develop site-specific policies, procedures, and processes coincidentally with the development of industry-wide guidance (i.e., NEI 06-06).

Early industry consensus during the development of NEI 06-06 has already enhanced the quality and consistency of construction permits and combined license applications made pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52.

Industry-developed guidance provides a foundation on which the NRC staff can provide additional detail through a draft regulatory guide. This should result in less NRC staff burden to develop a stand-alone regulatory guide and, fewer and/or less substantial comments from industry representatives for the staff to resolve before regulatory guide publication. This approach would also reduce burden on the NRC staff and license applicants because the NRC would have fewer requests for information regarding combined operating license related FFD programs under 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart K. Lastly, the publication of a regulatory guide that endorses industry guidance will facilitate stakeholder participation in the regulatory process by offering the ability to comment on content and context.

An additional value to the NRC staff of industry-developed guidance would be enhanced consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness in licensees implementation of 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart K, requirements. This enhanced consistency would further increase the effectiveness of NRC inspection activities because licensees would be implementing FFD programs known by and acceptable to the NRC staff.

The value to the public would be an increased awareness and confidence that licensees are implementing similar FFD programs that provide reasonable assurance that individuals constructing and directing the construction of safety- or security-related structures systems and components at our Nations nuclear power facilities are fit for duty, trustworthy, and reliable as demonstrated by the avoidance of substance abuse.

4. Conclusion Based on this regulatory analysis, the NRC staff concludes that alternative 2, issuing a new regulatory guide, is the preferred option for addressing the issues described above in Section 1, Statement of the Problem. This alternative would enhance licensees understanding of the NRCs regulations and inform these entities of acceptable methods that meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart K. This alternative would reduce staff and industry stakeholder burden and enhance implementation consistency, which should result in reduced costs to the NRC staff, applicants, and licensees.