Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/07/21/2011-18395/alternative-to-minimum-days-off-requirements
Timestamp: 2014-04-23 14:05:07
Document Index: 273676313

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', 'art 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', 'art 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', 'art 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 50', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', 'art 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', 'art 26', '§ 26', 'art 52', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26', '§ 26']

Federal Register | Alternative to Minimum Days Off Requirements
-43549 (16 pages)
Shorter URL: https://federalregister.gov/a/2011-18395 Related Topics
10 CFR 26.203General Provisions
10 CFR 26.205Work Hours
10 CFR 26.207Waivers and Exceptions
10 CFR 26.209Self-Declarations
10 CFR 26.211Fatigue assessments
Federal rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-2011-0058. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher, telephone: 301-492-3668, e-mail:
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS, which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov.
On September 3, 2010, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submitted a petition for rulemaking (PRM-26-5). In PRM-26-5, the NEI stated that the “new rule has resulted in consequences not originally envisioned when the rule was developed” and that “[t]hese consequences have diminished the safety benefits of the rule.” The NEI stated that the unintended consequences stem from the minimum days off requirements, specifically § 26.205(d)(3) through § 26.205(d)(6), because they created an undue level of complexity and inflexibility in managing worker fatigue. These regulations mandated a specified minimum average number of days off per week, averaged over a fixed time period. The minimum average number of days off depended on the duties the individual performed and, for § 26.205(d)(3), the length of an individual's shift schedule (i.e., whether the individual was working 8-, 10- or 12-hour shifts).
The NEI requested, among other changes, that 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, be amended to replace the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d) with a performance-based objective, consisting of an average of 54 hours worked per week, averaged over a calendar quarter. The NEI also proposed changing the § 26.205(e)(1) annual assessment of actual hours worked and performance of individuals subject to the work hour controls to a quarterly assessment to provide a more frequent review of hours worked. The NEI proposed to eliminate the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) through § 26.205(d)(6), while the work hour limits and break requirements in § 26.205(d)(1)(i)-(iii) and (d)(2)(i)-(ii), respectively, would remain unchanged.
In a February 8, 2011, public meeting, the NRC staff and stakeholders briefed the Commission on the implementation of the 10 CFR Part 26 fatigue management requirements. The nuclear power industry stakeholders conveyed many of the same concerns raised in the three public meetings. The NRC staff presented the scientific and technical bases for the requirements for managing cumulative fatigue and a proposal to address the concerns raised by the industry stakeholders. The NRC staff proposed a maximum average 54-hour work week, averaged over a 6-week rolling period, as an alternative to the § 26.205(d)(3) minimum days off requirements. The NRC staff and industry stakeholders generally agreed that this proposal could provide the relief sought by the industry while meeting the objectives of the minimum days off requirements. Other stakeholders were less certain that the NRC should consider proposals to change the requirements.
On April 25, 2011, consistent with the March 24, 2011, SRM, the NRC revised its Enforcement Policy to include an interim provision allowing licensees enforcement discretion for violations of § 26.205(d)(3) if the licensees implement an alternative approach to the minimum days off requirements (76 FR 22802). This alternative approach limits an individual's number of hours worked to a weekly average of 54 hours, calculated using a rolling window of up to 6 weeks. The enforcement discretion remains in place until the effective date of this final rule.
II. Public Input to the Final Rule Back to Top
The NRC issued a proposed rule on April 26, 2011, to amend 10 CFR Part 26 to provide licensees with an option for managing cumulative fatigue that differed from the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) (76 FR 23208). The proposed rule would have permitted licensees to maintain individuals' work hours at or below a weekly average of 54 work hours, calculated using a rolling period of up to 6 weeks, which would roll by no more than 7 consecutive calendar days at any time. On May 3, 2011, the NRC published a correction in the Federal Register to correct a typographical error in a Web site address that had appeared in the proposed rule (76 FR 24831). The public comment period closed on May 26, 2011.
The NRC received submittals from 10 commenters, which included 25 separate comments. Seven of the commenters supported the proposed rule's concept of providing the alternative method of managing cumulative fatigue that would be simpler and more flexible to implement than the minimum days off requirements. These seven commenters included Mr. Erb, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the NEI, with endorsements from Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Entergy Operations, Inc. and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Arizona Public Service Company (APS), and the Tennessee Valley Authority. Although it supported the comments submitted by the NEI, the APS submitted additional comments concerning implementation of the alternative and minimum days off requirements. Another commenter, Mr. Larry Lawson, a nuclear power plant reactor operator, objected to the proposed rule. Two individuals, Mr. Harry Sloan and Mr. Mark Callahan, provided comments that were primarily outside the limited scope of this rulemaking.
The NEI also recommended that the following words in proposed § 26.205(d)(7)(i) be removed: “which rolls by no more than 7 consecutive calendar days at any time.” The NEI contended that those words add a new requirement that (1) Was not discussed at the February 8, 2011, Commission briefing; (2) is not based on the technical and regulatory analysis performed by the NRC staff; (3) is inconsistent with the minimum days off requirements and its associated guidance, neither of which stipulates the duration of the rolling increment; and (4) would be outside the scope of the March 24, 2011, SRM. According to the NEI, this proposed rule language would result in an unintended consequence of preventing the rolling periods from being matched to the licensee's payroll schedules, thereby possibly resulting in rolling schedules that are different for each individual worker and unwarranted complexity.
The NRC agrees in part and disagrees in part with the NEI comments. The words, “which rolls by no more than 7 consecutive calendar days at any time,” in proposed § 26.205(d)(7)(i), were not discussed at the February 8, 2011, Commission briefing. However, as noted by the NEI, the NRC and stakeholders discussed at public meetings how the averaging periods could be advanced on a weekly basis. The intent of the rule language in question was to establish the minimum and maximum periods by which a licensee could advance an averaging period. Thus, a licensee could advance its averaging period by as little as one day but by no more than one week, or 7 consecutive calendar days. Although licensees at the public meetings may have talked about advancing their averaging periods on a weekly basis, the NRC did not want to limit licensees' flexibility by requiring 1-week incremental periods.
The NEI identified another unintended consequence of the words, “which rolls by no more than 7 consecutive calendar days at any time,” in proposed § 26.205(d)(7)(i). The definition of a day off contained in § 26.205(d)(3) states that a day off is a calendar day in which an individual does not start a work shift. For many licensees, this definition is used in computer software to count the work hours of a shift that begins at the end of a calendar day but ends during the next calendar day, as hours worked on the day the shift started as opposed to splitting the hours between the two days. The NEI claimed that the NRC's interpretation of this proposed rule language, as expressed at the May 11, 2011, public meeting, would impact this practice and cause an unnecessary change to the industry software.
The NEI also commented that in the fourth paragraph in section III.C of the proposed rule's SOC, which includes a discussion of the force-on-force tactical exercise exception, the last sentence is inconsistent with the proposed rule language and the 2008 final rule. The NEI suggested that the paragraph should be revised to read: “exclude from the § 26.205(d)(7) calculations the shifts worked” instead of “exclude from the § 26.205(d)(7) calculations the hours worked.”
The last paragraph in section III.C of the proposed rule's SOC addresses the applicability of EGM-09-008, “Enforcement Guidance Memorandum—Dispositioning Violations of NRC Requirements for Work Hour Controls Before and Immediately After a Hurricane Emergency Declaration,” dated September 24, 2009, to the proposed maximum average work hours alternative. The NEI requests that this paragraph include an explanation of whether licensees with exemptions from the minimum days off requirements could rely on those existing exemptions if they choose to adopt the maximum average work hours alternative. The NRC agrees that the paragraph in question could benefit from further clarity. A licensee that has already been granted an exemption from § 26.205(d) before and immediately after a hurricane emergency declaration can rely on that exemption if it implements the requirements in the new § 26.205(d)(7). The final rule's SOC is also revised to provide further explanation of the conditions that must exist before the NRC staff may exercise enforcement discretion under EGM-09-008.
The NEI contends that the second sentence in proposed § 26.205(d)(7) is not necessary. That sentence reads: “Licensees voluntarily choosing to comply with the alternative maximum average work hours requirements in this paragraph are not relieved from complying with all other requirements in § 26.205 other than § 26.205(d)(3).” The NEI argues that there is nothing stated or implied in § 26.205(d)(7) that would lead one to conclude that § 26.205(d)(7) provides any relief from complying with all other requirements in § 26.205 other than those in § 26.205(d)(3).
The NRC agrees with the NEI's comment and has deleted the second sentence of § 26.205(d)(7) in the final rule, because it is unnecessary.
The NRC disagrees that the proposed rule language did not prohibit implementation of both the minimum days off and alternative requirements at one site. The APS pointed to the following language in proposed § 26.205(d)(3) to support its argument: “Licensees shall e ith e r ensure that individuals have, at a minimum, the number of days off specified in this paragraph, or comply with the requirements for maximum average work hours in § 26.205(d)(7)” (italics added by the APS). The NRC intends that sentence to convey that licensees shall either: (1) ensure that individuals have, at a minimum, the number of days off specified in § 26.205(d)(3) (i.e., the licensee shall comply with the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3)); or (2) comply with the requirements for maximum average work hours in § 26.205(d)(7). This reading of proposed § 26.205(d)(3), which focuses on the licensee's obligations, is consistent with the language of proposed § 26.205(d)(7)(ii), which reads as follows: “Each licensee shall state, in its FFD policy and procedures required by § 26.27 and § 26.203(a) and (b), with which requirements the licensee is complying: the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) or maximum average work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(7).” In both provisions, the licensee must choose which set of requirements it intends to follow. Thus, the proposed rule language clearly reflected the NRC's position that each licensee must implement only one method of managing cumulative fatigue for all of its covered workers: either the minimum days off requirements or the alternative requirements. A reading of the proposed rule language would have been consistent with the interpretation in the APS's comment if the word “either” had immediately followed “individuals” in the first sentence of § 26.205(d)(3), so that it read: “Licensees shall ensure that individuals either have, at a minimum, the number of days off specified in this paragraph, or comply with the requirements for maximum average work hours in § 26.205(d)(7).”
The NRC disagrees with Mr. Lawson. The work hour controls were issued in 2008 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 NRC requires that licensees comply with the requirements but does not direct licensees to satisfy these requirements by any particular means, such as by hiring more workers. Further, as stated in the SOC for this final rule, the alternative provides reasonable assurance of the management of cumulative fatigue that is comparable to the assurance provided by the minimum days off requirements. In doing so, the alternative does not provide relief from or relaxation of the minimum days off requirements. No change was made to the final rule as a result of this comment. Mr. Lawson also maintained that, as demonstrated by this rulemaking and the shortened public comment period, the NRC seems willing to give the industry whatever it wants. The NRC disagrees with this comment. At the November 18, 2010, public meeting, more than 20 individuals, representing maintenance, operations, and security workers, unions, and vendors, spoke of the unintended consequences of the minimum days off requirements. These stakeholders emphasized the industry's inability to continue practices that licensees consider beneficial, such as promoting continuity in work crew staffing and the continued development of licensee staff. The industry representatives further stated that the hours available for work are sufficient in almost all cases; however, they believe there should be more flexibility in how the time can be used to help improve workers' quality of life and lessen the complexity of the rule. The Commission directed the staff to develop the proposed rule based on the following: (1) Feedback from industry representatives; (2) information presented by two petitioners for rulemaking seeking changes to the work hour controls in 10 CFR 26.205; (3) NEI's request for enforcement discretion of those same regulatory provisions in 10 CFR 26.205; (4) evidence gathered from stakeholders at public meetings and the February 8, 2011, Commission briefing; and (5) analysis performed by the NRC staff and explained in memoranda to the Commission dated January 4, 2011, and February 28, 2011. The NRC also held three public meetings and one public briefing to the Commission on this issue between November 2010 and March 2011, thereby offering stakeholders several opportunities to provide their input. Taken together, all of this information provided the Commission with a reasonable basis to support its decision to issue the proposed rule and establish a 30-day comment period instead of the typical 75-day public comment period. No change was made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
A schedule that provides an individual only 1 day off in 17 consecutive days under the alternative approach could result in cumulative fatigue. However, to limit an individual's number of days off to one in a 17-day period and still meet the 54-hour maximum weekly average, a licensee could not schedule an excessive number of work hours every week in the averaging periods containing that 17-day period. The NRC is also endorsing implementation guidance for licensees that summarizes this concern and reiterates each licensee's obligation to schedule work hours of covered workers consistent with the objective of preventing impairment from fatigue due to the duration, frequency, or sequencing of successive shifts as required by 10 CFR 26.205(c). Therefore, with the inherent self-limiting nature of a maximum weekly work hour average schedule, the use of regularly-repeating standard shift schedules by most licensees, site procedures that reinforce the requirement to effectively manage fatigue, and the other work hour controls in § 26.205(d)(1) and (d)(2), the risk of cumulative fatigue is low under the schedule posited by Mr. Lawson. No change was made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
The UCS suggested that workers on 12-hour shifts would be restricted to working alternating 5-day (60 hours per week) and 4-day (48 hours per week) work weeks to adhere to the 54-hour average limit. The NRC disagrees that such a schedule would be the only permissible schedule under the alternative. For example, licensees could arrange a 6-week schedule of 72 hours, 72 hours, 60 hours, 48 hours, 36 hours, and 36 hours, which would average 54 hours per week and also meet the work hour controls in § 26.205(d)(1) and (d)(2). No change was made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
The UCS commented that the proposed revision to § 26.205(d)(4) would require licensees to follow the minimum days off requirements during outages lasting longer than 60 days, even if they applied the alternative approach before and during the outage. The NRC does not agree that the proposed rule would have required these licensees to meet the minimum days off requirements following the first 60 days of a unit outage. Individuals subject to the minimum days off requirements before a unit outage are subject to those same requirements after the first 60 days of the outage, unless § 26.205(d)(6) applies. Under the proposed and final rules, licensees who use the maximum average work hours provisions before an outage must follow those requirements after the first 60 days of the outage, unless § 26.205(d)(6) applies. The amendment to § 26.205(d)(4) allows licensees who use the maximum average work hours provisions before an outage to use those requirements during the outage too. A similar option is and has been available to licensees implementing the minimum days off requirements. Amended § 26.205(d)(4) does not change licensees' obligations after the first 60 days of an outage. No change was made to the final rule as a result of this comment.
III. Description of the Final Rule Back to Top
In general, most individuals that work their normal shift schedule and receive only the minimum number of days off required under the minimum days off requirements of § 26.205(d)(3) could average as many as 54 hours of work per week. However, the NEI indicated that implementation of the minimum days off requirements reduced licensee scheduling flexibility and imposed a substantial administrative burden. By comparison, limiting work hours to an average of not more than 54 hours per week by using an averaging period of up to 6 weeks with 7-day incremental periods limits the number of consecutive weeks of extended work hours that an individual can work by using a comparable but simpler and more flexible requirement. The 6-week limit also remains consistent with the averaging duration and technical basis of the minimum days off requirements, as described in the SOC for the 2008 10 CFR part 26 final rule. In addition, this alternative does not depend on the length of an individual's shift schedule. The alternative eliminates for licensees and individuals the burden of tracking the number of days off that an individual receives in a period not to exceed 6 weeks. Based on stakeholder input, the alternative will relieve operational burdens by enabling licensee personnel to engage in certain safety-beneficial practices with fewer scheduling restrictions, such as holding off-shift shift manager meetings and using the most knowledgeable workers in responding to plant events and conditions. The flexibility provided by the alternative also could improve individuals' quality of life by allowing more flexibility in the way that individuals use their time when they are not working.
In summary, the maximum number of hours that can be worked under the alternative approach is comparable to the maximum number of hours that can be worked by most individuals under the 10 CFR part 26 minimum days off requirements, except that the alternative requirement provides greater simplicity and flexibility. Although the schedule required under the alternative approach limits the number of consecutive extended work weeks and thereby limits the potential for cumulative fatigue, there are unusual potential circumstances in which the alternative requirement could be met and the schedule could be fatiguing. Such schedules include having only one in every nine days off or consistently working the maximum allowable hours, which would likely result in cumulative fatigue. However, the industry has stated that these unusual schedules are improbable. The NRC concludes that this alternative approach, together with other aspects of the rule that remain unchanged, provide reasonable assurance that licensees will manage cumulative fatigue in a manner that contributes to the protection of public health and safety and common defense and security.
The NRC is creating a new § 26.205(d)(7) that contains the alternative method for managing cumulative fatigue. This final rule allows nuclear power plant licensees and other entities identified in § 26.3(a) and, if applicable, (c) and (d) to choose whether or not to implement this alternative approach, in lieu of compliance with the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3). The NRC is not removing the § 26.205(d)(3) minimum days off requirements and mandating that all licensees instead adopt new maximum average work hours requirements. Some licensees may be satisfied with the minimum days off requirements. In addition, a mandated change would constitute backfitting under the NRC's Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109. None of the exceptions in § 50.109(a)(4) to the requirement to prepare a backfit analysis could be justified, and a backfit analysis could not demonstrate that a mandatory rule would constitute a cost-justified substantial increase in protection to public health and safety or common defense and security. For these reasons, the NRC has decided to add the maximum weekly average of 54 work hours, averaged over a period of up to 6 weeks that advances every 7 days, as an alternative to the minimum days off requirements.
The alternative in this final rule can be used only in place of the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) and is applicable only to individuals subject to work hour controls under § 26.205(a). Under § 26.205(a), the subject individuals are those described in § 26.4(a). The NRC's determination that the proposed alternative is equivalent to the minimum days off requirements considered the collective advantages and disadvantages of having all individuals who are subject to the work hour controls under a single set of cumulative fatigue management requirements. Thus, licensees are not able to subject one group of individuals under § 26.4(a) to the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) and another group of individuals under § 26.4(a) to new § 26.205(d)(7) requirements. Licensees must select only one option. This choice establishes the legally-binding requirement for that licensee for all individuals subject to the work hour controls of § 26.205.
Consistent with the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3), the alternative maximum average work hours provisions apply to all periods of operations, with several specified exceptions: (1) During force-on-force exercises; (2) during plant emergencies; and (3) for security personnel when they are needed to maintain the common defense and security. In those limited circumstances, special provisions, described in section IV. of this document, apply. In addition, licensees had the option under former § 26.205(d)(4) to comply with the minimum days off requirements in either § 26.205(d)(3) or (d)(4) during unit outages when the affected individuals are working on outage activities. Licensees also had the option under former § 26.205(d)(5) to comply with the minimum days off requirements in either § 26.205(d)(3) or (d)(5) during unit outages, security system outages, or increased threat conditions. Under the final rule, licensees also have the option to comply with the maximum average work hours requirements under the above conditions. The SOC for the 2008 10 CFR part 26 final rule explained the reasons why the Commission permits the exceptions and options involving the minimum days off requirements. The approach set forth in this final rule offers licensees an alternative to the minimum days off requirements that is equally effective at managing cumulative fatigue. Therefore, the SOC for the 2008 10 CFR Part 26 final rule also provides the justification for why the alternative applies to the exceptions and options described in section IV. of this document.
The NRC's Office of Enforcement issued EGM-09-008, “Enforcement Guidance Memorandum—Dispositioning Violations of NRC Requirements for Work Hour Controls Before and Immediately After a Hurricane Emergency Declaration,” on September 24, 2009. The EGM-09-008 gives the NRC staff guidance for processing violations of work hour controls requirements during conditions before and immediately after the declaration of an emergency for a hurricane, when licensees sequester plant staff on site to ensure personnel are available for relief of duties, and potentially granting enforcement discretion for the affected requirements. Under EGM-09-008, the NRC may exercise enforcement discretion for violations of 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d) while a licensee sequesters site personnel in preparation for hurricane conditions that are expected to result in the declaration of an emergency caused by high winds and immediately after the licensee has exited the emergency declaration. The licensee must meet certain conditions, including having site-specific procedural guidance that specifies the conditions necessary to sequester site personnel, and having requested an exemption from 10 CFR 26.205(c) and (d), or any part thereof, to allow for sequestering site personnel before and immediately after a hurricane. If the licensee must sequester before an exemption has been submitted, then the licensee must agree, in writing, to request the exemption no later than 6 months before the onset of the next hurricane season, as established by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Hurricane Center. The EGM-09-008 refers to § 26.205(d) generally, and therefore, the requirements in § 26.205(d)(7) also fall under the enforcement discretion described by EGM-09-008. Also, licensees who, before the effective date of this final rule, were granted exemptions from § 26.205(d) before and immediately after a hurricane emergency declaration can rely on that exemption if they implement the requirements in § 26.205(d)(7).
Section 26.203 establishes requirements for licensees' fatigue management policies, procedures, training, examinations, recordkeeping, and reporting. The NRC is making conforming changes to paragraphs within § 26.203 to ensure consistency between the implementation of the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) and the implementation of the maximum average work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(7).
Section 26.203(d)(2) requires licensees to retain records of shift schedules and shift cycles of individuals who are subject to the work hour requirements established in § 26.205. These records are necessary, in part, to ensure that documentation of the licensee's fatigue management program is retained and available for the NRC inspectors to verify that licensees are complying with the work hour requirements and waiver and fatigue assessment provisions. Licensees that implement the alternative must be able to demonstrate that individuals subject to the new work hour controls have not exceeded the average weekly work hours limit; therefore, inspectors need to know the averaging periods used by the licensee. The NRC is amending § 26.203(d)(2) to include the requirement that licensees implementing the requirements in § 26.205(d)(7) maintain records showing the beginning and end times and dates of all 6-week or shorter averaging periods. These licensees must also retain records of shift schedules to ensure compliance with the requirements in § 26.205(c) and (d)(2).
The former § 26.203(e)(1) required licensees to provide the NRC with an annual summary of all instances during the previous calendar year in which the licensee waived each of the work hour controls specified in § 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(5)(i) for individuals who perform the duties listed in § 26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5). The NRC is revising § 26.203(e)(1) to require licensees to also report the instances when the licensee waived the requirements in § 26.205(d)(7).
Section 26.203(e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii) requires licensees to report whether work hour controls are waived for individuals working on normal plant operations or working on outage activities. The final rule requires licensees to include whether the alternative requirements in § 26.205(d)(7) were waived during normal plant operations or while working on outage activities.
Section 26.205 sets forth the NRC's requirements governing work hour controls applicable to individuals performing the duties in 10 CFR 26.4(a)(1) through (a)(5). The NRC is adding new § 26.205(d)(7) and (d)(8) and making conforming changes to paragraphs within § 26.205 to ensure consistency between the implementation of the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) and the implementation of the maximum average work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(7).
Section 26.205(b)(5) allows licensees to exclude from the calculation of an individual's work hours unscheduled work performed off site (e.g., technical assistance provided by telephone from an individual's home), provided the total duration of the work does not exceed a nominal 30 minutes during any single break period. For the purposes of compliance with the minimum break requirements of § 26.205(d)(2) and the minimum days off requirements of § 26.205(d)(3) through (d)(5), such duties do not constitute work periods or work shifts. The NRC is revising § 26.205(b)(5) to exclude these incidental duties from hours worked under § 26.205(d)(7).
The former § 26.205(d)(3) required licensees to ensure that subject individuals have, at minimum, the days off as specified in this section. Under the final rule, licensees have the option of either complying with the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) or the alternative requirements in § 26.205(d)(7).
Section 26.205(d)(4) provides a limited discretionary exception from the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) for individuals performing the duties specified in § 26.4(a)(1) through (a)(4) (i.e., certain operations, chemistry, health physics, fire brigade, and maintenance activities). The exception from the minimum days off requirements is available during the first 60 days of a unit outage while a subject individual is working on outage activities. In these circumstances, licensees are not required to calculate the requisite number of an individual's days off by a weekly average over a period of up to 6 weeks. Instead, if the licensee elects to apply the exception, § 26.205(d)(4) requires licensees to ensure that individuals specified in § 26.4(a)(1) through (a)(3) have a minimum of 3 days off in each successive (i.e., non-rolling) 15-day period and that individuals specified in § 26.4(a)(4) have at least 1 day off in any 7-day period. Detailed guidance on the applicability of this rule provision is available in Regulatory Guide 5.73, “Fatigue Management for Nuclear Power Plant Personnel.” After the first 60 days of a unit outage, regardless of whether the individual is working on unit outage activities, the individual is again subject to the minimum days off requirements of § 26.205(d)(3), except as permitted by § 26.205(d)(6). The NRC is revising § 26.205(d)(4) to allow licensees that implement the maximum average work hours alternative before and after an outage to have the option to use the alternative or the fixed number of days off approach during the first 60 days of a unit outage.
Section 26.205(d)(5)(i) provides a discretionary exception from the minimum days off requirements of § 26.205(d)(3) for personnel performing the duties described in § 26.4(a)(5) during unit outages or planned security system outages. The requirement limits this exception period to 60 days from the beginning of the outage and requires that individuals performing the security duties identified in § 26.4(a)(5) during this period have a minimum of 4 days off in each non-rolling 15-day period. Amended § 26.205(d)(5)(i) allows licensees that implement the maximum average work hours alternative before and after an outage to have the option to use the alternative or the fixed number of days off approach in § 26.205(d)(5)(i) for security personnel during the first 60 days of a unit outage or planned security system outage.
Section 26.205(d)(5)(ii) provides a discretionary exception from the minimum days off requirements of § 26.205(d)(3) and (d)(5)(i) for security personnel during the first 60 days of an unplanned security system outage or an increased threat condition. Individuals performing the security duties identified in § 26.4(a)(5) during this period do not have to meet the minimum days off requirements of § 26.205(d)(3) or (d)(5)(i). The NRC is revising § 26.205(d)(5)(ii) to provide that, during the first 60 days of an unplanned security system outage or an increased threat condition, licensees would not need to meet the requirements of § 26.205(d)(3), (d)(5)(i), or (d)(7) for security personnel.
The NRC is including a new section in 10 CFR Part 26 governing maximum average work hours for subject individuals, which licensees can implement as an alternative to comparable provisions in § 26.205(d)(3). Licensees who choose to implement this alternative must nonetheless comply with all requirements in § 26.205 other than the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3).
The individuals subject to the maximum average work hours requirements in this section are the same as the individuals subject to the comparable controls in § 26.205(d)(3), which, according to § 26.205(a), are the individuals described in § 26.4(a). Unlike the minimum days off requirements, the maximum average work hours alternative establishes a uniform requirement for all individuals described in § 26.205(a) without regard for their assigned duties or the lengths of their shift schedules.
Licensees who elect to implement the requirements of § 26.205(d)(7)(i) must manage affected individuals' cumulative fatigue by limiting the number of hours they work each week to an average of 54 hours. The 54-hour average is computed over an averaging period of up to 6 weeks. As an averaging period ends, a licensee advances (i.e., adjusts forward) the beginning and end times and dates of the averaging periods by 7 consecutive calendar days. Licensees must describe in their FFD procedures, as required by new § 26.205(d)(8), the beginning and end times and days of the week for the averaging periods.
Licensees implementing the maximum average work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(7)(i) have an option under new § 26.205(d)(7)(ii) regarding how they count work hours, for purposes of computing an individual's average number of work hours, during an individual's overnight work shift. When a shift begins near the end of a calendar day and concludes during the next calendar day, licensees can treat the hours worked during that shift as if the hours were all worked on the day the shift started, or licensees can attribute the hours of the shift to the calendar days on which the hours were actually worked. For example, if an individual begins her 10-hour shift at 8 p.m. on Sunday, then that shift would end at 6 a.m. on Monday. The licensee could consider all 10 hours as having been worked on the Sunday, or the licensee could count 4 hours worked on Sunday (from 8 p.m.-12 a.m.) and 6 hours worked on Monday (from 12 a.m.-6 a.m.). The final rule and section IV. of this document refer to these two methods of counting the hours of an individual's overnight work shift under § 26.205(d)(7) as the “work hour counting systems.”
New § 26.205(d)(7)(iii) requires each licensee to document, in its FFD policies and procedures required by 10 CFR 26.27 and 10 CFR 26.203, which work hour counting system in § 26.205(d)(7)(ii) the licensee is using. As a general matter, good regulatory practice requires each licensee to clearly document its licensing basis, especially where the NRC's requirements offer the licensee one or more regulatory alternatives. If a licensee clearly and sufficiently documents its licensing basis, then the licensee can more easily determine, despite changes (as applicable) in personnel, procedures, or its design, whether the licensee continues to comply with its licensing basis and applicable NRC requirements. Effective documentation also allows the NRC to quickly and accurately determine the licensee's status of compliance and affords the public an opportunity to understand the legal constraints to which that licensee is subject.
Section 26.27 requires licensees to establish written FFD policies and procedures, and 10 CFR 26.203(a) and (b) requires licensees to include in the § 26.27 written policies and procedures the specific policies and procedures for the management of fatigue, including the process for implementing the work hour controls in § 26.205. To ensure clarity in the regulations and each licensee's licensing basis, new § 26.205(d)(7)(iii) clearly establishes the licensee's (and applicant's) regulatory obligation to document in its FFD policies and procedures, required by § 26.27 and § 26.203(a) and (b), the work hour counting system the licensee is using.
Under new § 26.205(d)(8), each licensee needs to explicitly state, in its FFD policies and procedures required by 10 CFR 26.27 and 10 CFR 26.203, the requirements with which it is complying: the minimum days off provisions in § 26.205(d)(3) or the maximum average work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(7). Under 10 CFR 26.203(a) and (b), information concerning the process for implementing the maximum average work hours requirements would include, for instance, the beginning and end times and days of the week for the averaging periods. As with new § 26.205(d)(7)(iii), because licensees have the option of two cumulative fatigue management programs to implement, § 26.205(d)(8) establishes the licensee's (and applicant's) regulatory obligation to document in its FFD policies and procedures, required by § 26.27 and § 26.203(a) and (b), the requirements with which it will comply: the requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) or § 26.205(d)(7). Licensees are free to switch to the other set of legally-binding requirements, so long as the requirement of § 26.205(d)(8) is met.
Section 26.205(d)(8) was designated as § 26.205(d)(7)(ii) in the proposed rule. That provision of the proposed rule could have been read to require licensees to document their election of requirements only if they implemented the alternative. By removing the requirement from § 26.205(d)(7) and establishing the requirement in a regulatory provision independent of the provisions concerning the alternative, the NRC ensures that all licensees document their election.
Section 26.205(e)(1) requires licensees to review the actual work hours and performance of individuals who are subject to this section for consistency with the requirements of § 26.205(c), so that licensees can determine if they are controlling the work hours of individuals consistent with the objective of preventing impairment from fatigue due to the duration, frequency, or sequencing of successive shifts. Section 26.205(e)(1)(i) requires the licensees to assess the actual work hours and performance of individuals whose actual hours worked during the review period exceeded an average of 54 hours per week in any shift cycle while the individuals' work hours are subject to the requirements of § 26.205(d)(3). The NRC is amending § 26.205(e)(1)(i) to require licensees to assess the actual work hours and performance of individuals whose actual hours worked during the review period exceeded an average of 54 hours per week in any averaging period of up to 6 weeks. The duration of the averaging periods is the same duration that the licensees use to control the individuals' work hours to comply with the requirements of § 26.205(d)(7). In some instances, the averaging period used to control individuals' work hours to comply with the requirements of § 26.205(d)(7) will be a partial averaging period of 1 or more full (i.e., 7 consecutive calendar days) weeks but less than the duration of the licensee's normal full averaging period. Section 26.205(e)(1)(i) requires licensees to review the actual work hours and performance of individuals whose actual hours worked exceeded an average of 54 hours per week in any averaging period, regardless of whether the averaging period was a full or partial averaging period.
Section 26.207 provides the criteria that licensees must meet to grant waivers and enact exceptions from the work hour requirements in § 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(5)(i). The NRC is making conforming changes to paragraphs within § 26.207 to ensure consistency between the implementation of the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) and the implementation of the maximum average work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(7).
Section 26.207(a) permits licensees to grant waivers from the work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(5)(i) for conditions that meet the two criteria specified in § 26.207(a). The NRC is revising § 26.207(a) to authorize licensees to grant waivers from the work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(7) if the criteria in § 26.207(a) are met.
Section 26.207(b) relieves licensees from the minimum days off requirements of § 26.205(d)(3) by allowing them to exclude shifts worked by security personnel during the actual conduct of NRC-evaluated force-on-force tactical exercises when calculating the individual's number of days off. The final rule amends § 26.207(b) to permit licensees to exclude from the maximum average work hours requirements of § 26.205(d)(7) the hours worked by security personnel during the actual conduct of NRC-evaluated force-on-force tactical exercises.
Section 26.209 requires licensees to take immediate action in response to a self-declaration by an individual who is working under, or being considered for, a waiver from the work hour controls in § 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(5)(i). The NRC is making a conforming change to § 26.209(a) to ensure consistency between the implementation of the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) and the implementation of the maximum average work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(7).
Section 26.209(a) is amended to address the situation in which an individual is performing, or being assessed for, work under a waiver of the requirements contained in § 26.205(d)(7) and declares that, due to fatigue, he or she is unable to safely and competently perform his or her duties. The licensee shall immediately stop the individual from performing any duties listed in § 26.4(a), except if the individual is required to continue performing those duties under other requirements in Chapter 1 of Title 10. If the subject individual must continue performing the duties listed in § 26.4(a) until relieved, then the licensee shall immediately take action to relieve the individual.
Section 26.211 requires licensees to conduct fatigue assessments under several conditions. The NRC is making conforming changes to paragraphs within § 26.211 to ensure consistency between the implementation of the minimum days off requirements in § 26.205(d)(3) and the implementation of the maximum average work hours requirements in § 26.205(d)(7).
Section 26.211(b)(2)(iii) prohibits individuals from performing a post-event fatigue assessment if they evaluated or approved a waiver of the limits specified in § 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(5)(i) for any of the individuals who were performing or directing the work activities during which the event occurred if the event occurred while such individuals were performing work under that waiver. The final rule amends § 26.211(b)(2)(iii) to prohibit individuals from performing a post-event fatigue assessment if they evaluated or approved a waiver of the limits specified in § 26.205(d)(7) for any of the individuals who were performing or directing the work activities during which the event occurred if the event occurred while such individuals were performing work under that waiver.
Section 26.211(d) prohibits licensees from concluding that fatigue has not degraded or will not degrade an individual's ability to safely and competently perform his or her duties solely on the basis that the individual's work hours have not exceeded any of the limits specified in § 26.205(d)(1) or that the individual has had the minimum rest breaks required in § 26.205(d)(2) or the minimum days off required in § 26.205(d)(3) through (d)(5). The NRC is amending § 26.211(d) to include the maximum average work hours among the criteria that licensees may not solely rely on when concluding that fatigue has not degraded or will not degrade an individual's ability to safely and competently perform his or her duties.
V. Availability of Documents Back to Top
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 5.73, “Fatigue Management For Nuclear Power Plant Personnel” (March 2009)
ML083450028
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Generic Letter 82-12, “Nuclear Power Plant Staff Working Hours” (June 15, 1982)
ML082840762
PRM-26-5, Petition to Amend 10 CFR Part 26, “Fitness-for-Duty Programs,” filed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (September 3, 2010)
Docket ID NRC-2010-0304
ML102590440
Anthony R. Pietrangelo on Behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute; Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking, 75 FR 65249 (October 22, 2010)
Docket ID NRC-2010-0304.
Request for Enforcement Discretion filed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (September 23, 2010)
ML102710208
PRM-26-6, Petition to Amend 10 CFR Part 26, filed by Eric Erb (August 17, 2010)
Docket ID NRC-2010-0310
ML102630127
Eric Erb; Notice of Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking, 75 FR 71368 (November 23, 2010)
Docket ID NRC-2010-0310.
SECY-11-0003, Status of Enforcement Discretion Request and Rulemaking Activities Related to 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, “Managing Fatigue” (January 4, 2011)
ML103420201
SECY-11-0028, Options for Implementing an Alternative Interim Regulatory Approach to the Minimum Days Off Provisions of 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, “Managing Fatigue” (February 28, 2011)
ML110390077
EGM-09-008, “Enforcement Guidance Memorandum—Dispositioning Violations of NRC Requirements for Work Hour Controls Before and Immediately After a Hurricane Emergency Declaration” (September 24, 2009)
ML092380177
Staff Requirements—SECY-11-0003—Status of Enforcement Discretion Request and Rulemaking Activities Related to 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, “Managing Fatigue” and SECY-11-0028—Options for Implementing an Alternative Interim Regulatory Approach to the Minimum Days Off Provisions of 10 CFR Part 26, Subpart I, “Managing Fatigue” (March 24, 2011)
ML110830971
Updated Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Part 26, Subpart I, Implementation to Understand Unintended Consequences of the Minimum Day Off Requirements (November 15, 2010)
ML103160388
Summary of November 18, 2010, Public Meeting to Discuss Part 26, Subpart I, Implementation to Understand Unintended Consequences of the Minimum Day Off Requirements (December 13, 2010)
ML103430557
Update—Notice of Public Meeting Regarding Part 26, Subpart I, Minimum Days Off Requirements and Options Licensees May Implement to Receive Enforcement Discretion From These Requirements (December 30, 2010)
ML103550089
Summary of January 6, 2011, Public Meeting Regarding Part 26, Subpart I, Minimum Days Off Requirements and Options Licensees May Implement to Receive Enforcement Discretion from these Requirements (February 3, 2011)
ML110280446
Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Alternatives To the Part 26, Subpart I, Minimum Days Off Requirements (January 14, 2011)
ML110140315
Summary of January 25, 2011, Public Meeting to Discuss Alternatives to the Part 26, Subpart I, Minimum Days Off Requirements (February 3, 2011)
ML110340512
Sunshine Federal Register Notice of February 8, 2011, Commission Briefing on the Implementation of Part 26, 76 FR 5626 (February 1, 2011)
ML110200295
Transcript of February 8, 2011, Commission Briefing on the Implementation of Part 26
ML110410169
Interim Enforcement Policy for Minimum Days Off Requirements, 76 FR 22802 (April 25, 2011)
Docket ID NRC-2011-0058.
Alternative to the Minimum Days Off Requirements; Proposed Rule, 76 FR 23208 (April 26, 2011)
Alternative to the Minimum Days Off Requirements; Proposed Rule; Correction, 76 FR 24831 (May 3, 2011)
Comments of Mr. Erik Erb (May 6, 2011)
Docket ID NRC-2011-0058
ML11130A113
Comments of the Union of Concerned Scientists (May 10, 2011)
ML11132A013
Comments of Mr. Harry Sloan (May 23, 2011)
ML11144A157
Comments of the Nuclear Energy Institute (May 25, 2011)
ML11146A109
Comments of Mark Callahan (May 25, 2011)
ML11146A110
Comments of Larry Lawson (May 26, 2011)
ML11146A111
Comments of Dominion Resources Services, Inc. (May 27, 2011)
ML11151A143
Comments of Entergy Operations, Inc and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc (May 27, 2011)
ML11151A140
Comments of Arizona Public Service Company (May 27, 2011)
ML11151A141
Comments of Tennessee Valley Authority (May 26, 2011)
ML11153A044
PRM-26-5: Petition for Rulemaking; Consideration in the Rulemaking Process, 76 FR 28192 (May 16, 2011)
PRM-26-6: Petition for Rulemaking; Consideration in the Rulemaking Process, 76 FR 28191 (May 16, 2011)
Update, Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Implementation Guidance for Cumulative Fatigue Requirements that will be Based on a Maximum 54 Hour Per Week Rolling Average (April 13, 2011)
ML11102A071
Summary Of April 27, 2011, Public Meeting to Discuss Implementation Guidance for Cumulative Fatigue Requirements that will be Based on a Maximum 54 Hour Per Week Rolling Average (May 16, 2011)
ML11126A366
Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Implementation Guidance for Cumulative Fatigue Requirements that will be Based on a Maximum 54 Hour Per Week Rolling Average (April 29, 2011)
ML11119A200
Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Implementation Guidance for Cumulative Fatigue Requirements that will be Based on a Maximum 54 Hour Per Week Rolling Average (May 17, 2011)
ML11139A193
Notice of Public Meeting to Discuss Implementation Guidance for Cumulative Fatigue Requirements that will be Based on a Maximum 54 Hour Per Week Rolling Average (June 6, 2011)
ML11144A133
Summary of June 1, 2011, Public Meeting to Discuss Implementation Guidance for Cumulative Fatigue Requirements that will be Based on a Maximum 54 Hour Per Week Rolling Average (June 13, 2011)
ML11164A008
For the purposes of Section 223 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), as amended, the NRC is issuing this final rule that amends 10 CFR part 26 under one or more of Sections 161b, 161i, or 161o of the AEA. Willful violations of the rule are subject to criminal enforcement. Criminal penalties as they apply to regulations in 10 CFR part 26 are discussed in § 26.825.
VIII. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families Back to Top
IX. Voluntary Consensus Standards Back to Top
X. Finding of No Significant Environmental Impact: Environmental Assessment Back to Top
The NRC has determined that the alternative for determining time off does not significantly alter the likelihood that there will be an increase in fatigued workers causing operational problems or a radiological event, or being unable to properly perform their functions. The alternative provides affected licensees with a more-easily implemented approach for determining when subject individuals must be afforded the time off. The NRC recognizes that there are unusual potential circumstances in which the alternative requirement could be met and the schedule could be fatiguing. Such schedules include having only one in every nine days off or consistently working the maximum allowable hours, which would likely result in cumulative fatigue. However, the industry has stated that these unusual schedules are improbable. The NRC concludes that this alternative approach, together with other aspects of the rule that remain unchanged, provide reasonable assurance that licensees will manage cumulative fatigue in a manner that contributes to the protection of public health and safety and common defense and security. In addition, the alternative is expected to reduce scheduling constraints on certain safety-beneficial practices. Because the NRC's regulatory objective continues to be met under the alternative adopted in this final rule, there is no change in environmental impacts, during operation or while the nuclear power plant is in shutdown, as compared with the environmental impact of the minimum days off requirements.
XI. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement Back to Top
XII. Regulatory Analysis Back to Top
XIII. Regulatory Flexibility Certification Back to Top
XIV. Backfitting Back to Top
The NRC has determined that the Backfit Rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this final rule, nor is the final rule inconsistent with any of the finality provisions in 10 CFR part 52. The final rule, in 10 CFR 26.205(d)(7), provides nuclear power plant licensees with an alternative for compliance with the controls in 10 CFR 26.205(d)(3) governing minimum days off for certain nuclear power plant workers. Licensees are free to comply with either the requirements governing minimum days off or with the alternative requirements in 10 CFR 26.205(d)(7). The NRC concludes that a backfit analysis is not required for this final rule because this final rule does not contain any provisions that constitute backfitting.
XV. Congressional Review Act Back to Top
2.Section 26.203 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(2), the introductory text of paragraph (e)(1), and paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (e)(1)(ii), to read as follows: § 26.203 General provisions.
(1) A summary for each nuclear power plant site of all instances during the previous calendar year when the licensee waived one or more of the work hour controls specified in § 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(5)(i) and (d)(7) for individuals described in § 26.4(a). The summary must include only those waivers under which work was performed. If it was necessary to waive more than one work hour control during any single extended work period, the summary of instances must include each of the work hour controls that were waived during the period. For each category of individuals specified in § 26.4(a), the licensee shall report:
(ii) The number of instances when each applicable work hour control specified in § 26.205(d)(1)(i) through (d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(i) and (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i) through (d)(3)(v), (d)(4) and (d)(5)(i), and (d)(7) was waived for individuals working on outage activities; and
3.Section 26.205 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(5), (d)(4), (d)(5)(i), (d)(5)(ii), and (e)(1)(i) and the introductory text of paragraph (d)(3), and adding new paragraphs (d)(7) and (d)(8) to read as follows: § 26.205 Work hours.
4.Section 26.207 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (a), and paragraph (b), to read as follows: § 26.207 Waivers and assessments.
(b) Force-on-force tactical exercises. For the purposes of compliance with the minimum days off requirements of § 26.205(d)(3) or the maximum average work hours requirements of § 26.205(d)(7), licensees may exclude shifts worked by security personnel during the actual conduct of NRC-evaluated force-on-force tactical exercises when calculating the individual's number of days off or hours worked, as applicable.
5.Section 26.209 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: § 26.209 Self-declarations.
(a) If an individual is performing, or being assessed for, work under a waiver of one or more of the requirements contained in § 26.205(d)(1) through (d)(5)(i) and (d)(7) and declares that, due to fatigue, he or she is unable to safely and competently perform his or her duties, the licensee shall immediately stop the individual from performing any duties listed in § 26.4(a), except if the individual is required to continue performing those duties under other requirements of this chapter. If the subject individual must continue performing the duties listed in § 26.4(a) until relieved, the licensee shall immediately take action to relieve the individual.
6.Section 26.211 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(2)(iii) and (d) to read as follows: § 26.211 Fatigue assessments.
(d) The licensee may not conclude that fatigue has not or will not degrade the individual's ability to safely and competently perform his or her duties solely on the basis that the individual's work hours have not exceeded any of the limits specified in § 26.205(d)(1), the individual has had the minimum breaks required in § 26.205(d)(2) or minimum days off required in § 26.205(d)(3) through (d)(5), as applicable, or the individual's hours worked have not exceeded the maximum average number of hours worked in § 26.205(d)(7).