ML18304A234

11/1/2018 - NRC Presentation for Third Party Review of Access Authorization - Fitness for Duty Determinations

ML18304A234
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/01/2018
From:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
To:
Berrios, Ilka
References
NRC-2016-0145, RIN 3150-AJ79
Download: ML18304A234 (12)

Text

Status of Access Authorization and Fitness-for-Duty Determinations Rulemaking November 1, 2018

Agenda

• Background

• Status of Rulemaking

• Planned Next Steps

• Discussion Questions

• Closing Remarks 2

=

Background===

January 25, 2013 NEI submitted a petition for rulemaking, PRM-73-16 July 18, 2014 NEI submitted NEI 03-01, Rev. 4 to the NRC for endorsement March 20, 2015 NEI withdrew PRM-73-16 Nov 15, 2015 NRC staff submitted a paper to the Commission, SECY-15-0149 June 6, 2016 The Commission directed the staff to proceed with the normal rulemaking process, SRM-SECY-15-0149 2016 & 2017 NRC conducted two public meetings and one closed meeting 3

Staffs Assessment Access Authorization

• The staff considered feedback received from the International Brotherhood of Electric Workers (IBEW). IBEW data was limited only to the data that IBEW locals provided and was not necessarily a complete list of all IBEW cases or arbitrations conducted by other unions or brought by individuals independent of any union involvement.

• Industry provided the staff with anecdotal information on some cases involving third-party arbitration of AA and FFD determinations; however, detailed information was not provided.

• Based on data provided by IBEW, over a span of 32 years, 371 individuals had their employment terminated. Of those 371, 46 went to arbitration and 14 of those employees had the opportunity for reinstatement and 7 ultimately returned to work.

• NRC staff is only aware of one NRC non-cited violation being issued concerning a 3rd party arbitration. In this case, the NRC is not aware of any performance issues associated with this individual.

4

Staffs Assessment Fitness for Duty The staff reviewed:

• the IBEW data presented for Access Authorization

• a few occurrences in the commercial nuclear industry where third parties were involved in Medical Review Officer determinations and the Substance Abuse Experts plan for treatment.

5

Cost Analysis The staff performed a preliminary cost analysis associated with this proposed rulemaking.

• This analysis reviewed costs to the industry, NRC, and any third parties.

• The cost review assessed, in part, changes to policies, procedures, training, and collective bargaining agreements.

• No significant qualitative or quantitative benefits were identified that would offset the costs.

6

Staffs Preliminary Finding

• Based on the information provided by external stakeholders, there was no evidence of cases or arbitration practices that indicated regulatory action is needed to ensure adequate protection of the health and safety of the public and the common defense and security.

• The staff re-assessed its prior position and did not identify a significant safety or security concern that warrants engagement in rulemaking.

7

Planned Next Steps Rulemaking

• Recommend to the Commission that the rulemaking be terminated.

Guidance

• Evaluate whether to update NRC guidance, considering stakeholders input from this meeting.

o Regulatory Guide 5.66, Access Authorization Program for Nuclear Power Plants

• The NRC staff is open to reviewing proposed changes to industrys guidance.

o NEI 03-01, Nuclear Power Plant Access Authorization Program 8

Discussion Questions

1. What has been your experience with current appeal processes for AA denials or revocations or FFD determinations?

2. What are the elements of a robust appeals process?

3. For licensees that do not include AA and FFD determinations within the scope of arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement, what alternative approaches have been used that balance employee rights with the responsibility of licensees to ensure trustworthiness and reliability?

9

Discussion Questions

4. Would a review panel vice a single-person review of access revocations and/or denials be beneficial to both parties in the appeal process?

5. If a review panel is used in access denials and/or revocations, should panel members be required to meet specific qualifications to participate on the panel?

10

Closing Remarks 11

How did we do?

• Link to NRC Public Meeting Feedback form:

• Email feedback for to ilka.berrios@nrc.gov 12