ML20011D108
| ML20011D108 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/18/1989 |
| From: | Jordan E Committee To Review Generic Requirements |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011D109 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8911020222 | |
| Download: ML20011D108 (11) | |
Text
-
L j g o
Och 18. M89 MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor,
. Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman EpctosuB2 Committee to Review Generic Requirements
'3 R L W o V E l) l
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING NUMBER 170 The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) met on Wednesday, September 27,1989 f rom 1:00-4: 30 p.m.
A list of attendees for this meeting is enclosed (Enclosure 1).
The following items were addressed at the meeting 1.
The Committee reviewed a proposed NUREG documenting answers provided to licensees' questions regarding interpretation and implementation of Fitness-for-Duty rule requirements.
The Committee recommended in favor of issuing the proposed NUREG subject to a number of recommended changes, dnd transmitting it to licensees by generic letter which states clearly that the NUREG contains no new fitness-for-duty requirements.
This matter is discussed in Enclosure 2.
2.-
The Committee received a status briefing on the proposed Final Rule on Access Authorization.
The Committee began but did not complete their l
review of this proposed _ rule at Meeting No. 169.
The Committee made no new recommendations as a result of this briefing; CRGR review of this item will be resumed at a future meeting.
This matter is discussed in 1
Enclo:;ure 3.
In accordance with the ED0's July 18, 1983 directive concerning " Feedback and Closure of CRGR Reviews," a written response is required from the cognizant office to report agreement or disagreement with the CRGR recommendations in these minutes.
The response, which is required within five working days after receipt of these minutes, is to be forwarded to the CRGR Chairman and if there is disagreement with CRGR recommendations, to the EDO for decisionmaking.
Questions concerning these meeting minutes should be referred to Jim Conran (492-9855).
Originalsigned sy:
C. J. Heltemos, Jr.
i EdwardL. Jordan,bharman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
Enclosures:
Distribution: (w/o enclosures)
As stated Central File M. Lesar M. Taylor (w/ enc.)
PDR (NRC/CRGR)
P. Kadambi (w/ enc.)
- 8. Morris (w/ enc.)
cc: Next page S. Treby CRGR CF (w/ enc.)
T. King (w/ enc.)
W. Little CRGR SF (w/ enc.)
- 5. Bahadur (w/ enc.)
]
E. Jordan (w/ enc.)
J. Heltemes (w/ enc.)
J. Conran (w/ enc.)
D.-Allison-(w/ene.)
OFC : CRGR: AE00 :
AE00-
- C/CRG : E00 :
i NAME g : CJHA emes : El rdan DATE
//7/89 10/lf/89 $10/18/89 f
//eaeuyxq s
a a
[f-., * ' t:,
{
(;;.;< ?.
~2-cc w/ enclosures:
Commission.(5) l SECY J. Lieberman P. Norry' M. Malsch Regional Administrators CRGR Members i
s i
k f
si i
i i
i h
l
'.s n
r e,
.i
.j l
J l
Ob ',
.\\
lh t-i b.
i ATTENDANCE LIST Y
4 FOR i
CRGR MEETING NO. 170 i
September 27, 1989 L.
CRGR MEMBERS i
i
- 0. Ross (Acting Chairman)
J. Goldberg ti G. Arlotto i
L' L. Reyes i
J. Sniezek I
e CRGR STAFF l'
,c D. Allison J. Conran e
NRC STAFF L. Bush P. McKee G. McPeek F
N.-Ervin B.-. Morris S. Bahadur u
e 1
l.
~
l l
J l
l Fs.
W h[ :.,
+
i to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 170 Proposed NUREG - Q's and A's on Fitness for Duty September 27, 1989
+
TOPIC P. McKee (NRR) and L. Bush (NRR) presented for CRGR review a proposed NUREG
?
documenting staff responses to licensees' questions regarding implementation of the fitness for Duty rule.
No briefing slides were used by the staff in their presentations to the Committee on this item; the draft NUREG submitted for review in this matter was used to guide the discussions on this topic.
BACKGROUND i
1.
The document submitted to CRGR for review in this matter was transmitted by memorandum dated September 18, 1989, J. H. Sniezek to E. L. Jordan; the review document was a draft NUREG (undated) entitled, " Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry:
Responses to Implementation Questions."
2.
A memorandum dated September 25, 1989, 8. Grimes to J. Conran, transmit-i ted errata to the draft NUREG in 1 above and two additional' proposed questions / answers to be included in the NUREG guidance.
(See Attachment 1 to this Enclosure.)
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS i
As a result of their review of this matter, including the discussions with the staff at this meeting, the Committee recommended in favor of issuance of the proposed NUREG, subject to the following recommendations (to be coordinated with the CRGR staff):
1.
The Committee recommended that the final NUREG (revised to reflect the changes in 2 below) should be transmitted to licensees by a generic letter which indicates clearly that (a) the NUREG simply documents for easy reference the responses to licensees' questions provided by the staff in a public workshop and other contexts, to clarify the requirements and facilitate implementation of the Fitness for Duty rule; (b) in providing this guidance, it is the staff's intent not to impose any new fitness for duty requirements (i.e., beyond the Fitness for Duty rule); and (c) no specific action or separate response is required by the NUREG guidance or y
the generic letter that transmits the NUREG.
y M
2.
The Committee recommended specific changes to the proposed NUREG as I
follows:
In the " Abstract" of the draft NUREG (p. iii), delete the second and a.
third sentences of the first paragraph, and delete the introductory clause in the first sentence of the second paragraph, so that the sentence begins with the words, " Publication of this report...."
q
[ L.- '
o l
Also (referring to the word " positions" in the wording that was i
deleted), the staff should review care) ally the remainder of the l
draft NUREG and substitute the word " answers" for tne word i
" positions" wherever it appears.
I l'
b.
At page 1-1 of the draft NUREG, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, delete the introductory clause so that the sentence begins with the words, " Publication of this report...."
s At page 2-1 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question c.
2.3 to read as follows:
"If individuals are required, by name or position in the licensee's emergency plans or procedures, to physically report..."
d.
At page 2-3 of.the draft NUREG, in the proposed Answer to Question 2.7, j
i substitute the word "obtained" for the word " implemented."
At page 3-1 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question e.
3.2 to read as follows:
"The rule does not define the term "on-call"; however a licensee may determine that for persons such as duty officers the term "on-call" equates to "on-duty...."
f.
At.page 4-1 of the draft NUREG, change the second and third sentences in the proposed Answer to Question 4.2 to read as follows:
j "Furthermore, that understanding must be reinforced nominally each 12 months (see definition of " nominal" at page 12 1).
Therefore, training portions thereof need not be repeated...
unless more than 12 months, nominally, have elapsed...."
Also, change the second sentence in the proposed Answer to Question 4.3 to read as follows:
4 "What if the supervisor transfers before three months; will the supervisor avoid the training?"
g.
At page 4-3 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question 4.5 to read as follows:
"No.
However licensees are expected..."
h.
At page 5-1 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question
+
5.2 to read as follows:
"The rule does not prohibit such a practice; but this approach is not preferred.
In such an event, it would be prudent for the licensee to assure that such a laboratory is qualified to
[ 6'
[,.
3 L
perform the contracted services and, at a minimum, meets the.
L requirements of Part 26 which pertain to a licensee's testing l
facility (i.e., qualifications of personnel and quality controls)."
i.
At page 5-2 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question 5.3 to read as follows.
"The rule does not specifically address the situation; however,
{
a test would generally precede an assessment.
For example-Also, under the first bullet that follows, change the word "that" to "who."
j.
At page 5-3 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question L
5.4 to read as follows:
"The NRC would use reasonable interpretations of Part 26 to detennine if a licensee's actions are prudent."
k.
At pages 5-3 and 5-4 of the draft NUREG, delete the last six sentences t
of the first paragraph in the proposed Answer to Question 5.6, (beginning with the words "A common acceptable approach...") at the bottom of page 5-3.
1.
At page 5-6 of the draft NUREG, in the last sentence in the proposed Answer to Question 5.11, change the wording of the clause that follows the words "... additional blood tests..." to read as follows:
"...such action is not required by the rule."
t The staff should make conforming changes throughout the draft NUREG wherever appears the words "...such action would be without the protection of the rule."
At page 5-6 of the draft NUREG, clarify proposed Question 5.12 as m.
follows:
"A licensee's policy requires that whenever a specimen is tested positive (confirmed by GC/MS), a second specimen is collected and tested positive before both results are declared a single positive test result.
Is this acceptable?"
At page 5-9 of the draft NUREG, in the proposed Answer to Question n.
5.16, delete the third and fourth sentences and substitute the following:
"Although specimens that are packaged and sealed for shipment provide some protection from undetected tampering, the licensee L~
should have reasonable assurance that couriers employed to pick up and deliver specimens meet normal expectations of honesty l'
\\
t i
fc.'
-4 l
( '.
i e
and integrity, such as contract couriers.
Postal Service l
employees, Federal Express couriers, and pilots and crews of commercial aircraft are not intended to be covered by the rule.
At pages 5-10 and 5-11 of the draft NUREG, in the proposed Answer to o.
Question 5.18, delete all of the proposed responses except the first o
sentence.
(Do not include the names and addresses of the five sources suggested by NIDA )
L p.
At page 6-1 of the draf t NUREG, change the second sentence in the proposed Answer to Question 6.2 to read as follows:
"This could be an impartial individual manager or impartial board of managers."
s q.
At page 6-4 of the draft NUREG, in the last sentence of the proposed Answer to Question 6.8, delete the words "...particularly those i
that fall just short of the cut-off levels...."
o-At page 6-6 of the draft NUREG, clarify the proposeti Answer to r.
Question 6.11 by stating explicitly that the MRO can be located onsite or offsite.
At page 6-6 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question s.
6.12 to read as follows:
"No.
Using someone from the testing laboratory to serve as the Medical Review Officer would constitute a conflict of interest because the MRO is expected to make judgments J
concerning the performance of the laboratory and request that the laboratory repeat tests where he might question the scientific adequacy of the tests."
t.
At page 6-9 of the draft NUREG, in the fifth sentence of the proposed Answer to Question 6.15, delete the words "... assure the facts are as reported...."
At page 8-2 of the draft NUREG, in the proposed Answer to Question 8.2, u.
delete the word " continuously."
v.
At page 8-3 of the draft NUREG, add a Question and Answer to address J
testing requirements for individuals granted temporary access, b
At page 10-2 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question w.
10.3 to read as follows:
"...(ii) treated for substance abuse except for self referral that did not result in a report to management, (iii).., and (iv) denied unescorted access in accordance with a licensee's fitness for-duty policy.
Obviously...."
x.
At page 10-3 of the draft NUREG, delete the last sentence in the proposed Answer to Question 10.5
~,
p a
e q
p i'
y.
At page 10-5 of the draft NUREG, substitute the following for the I
proposed Answer to Question 10.9:
t "The enforcement action will be based upon an evaluation of 1
each case, and may be dependent on the actions taken by j
management to the preliminary information."
z.
At page 10-6 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question 10.10 to read as follows:
" Licensee actions in response to such offsite activities of their employees is not addressed by the rule.
Actions similar L
to...."
i aa. At page 10-6 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question 10.11 to read as follows:
"The rule does not address offsite drug arrests; however, the I
NRC assumes that the licensee's existing personnel policies deal with criminal acts, particularly felony convictions.
If t
an employee with an offsite drug arrest is retained by the licensee,...."
i bb. At page 10-6 of the draft NUREG, simplify proposed Q/A 10.12 as follows:
"Is a self-referral to EAP considered a first test failure?"
I Answer:
No.
.t cc. At_page 10-8 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question 10.17 to read as follows:
r "The NRC expects that the industry will take the lead in j
developing such a list."
dd. At page 11-1 of the draft NUREG, the staff should conform the wording in Q/A 11.1 to that in Q/A 3.2 regarding the meaning of the term i
"on-call." (See item 2.e above.)
l ee. At page 11-2 of the' draft NUREG, replace the second.and third sentences of the proposed Answer to Question 11.4 with the following:
L "Although the rule does not define the term "on-call," a licensee may determine that "on-call" is a " working tour" (see discussion in Q/A 3.2 above).
L Also, change the last sentence (bottom of page 11-2 and top of p
page 11-3) to read as follows:
"For example, it may be prudent to report a situation involving l
a site manager whose BAC is less than 0.04%, but has alcohol on l
his breath because this may come to the attention of the NRC and the public through the news media."
I:
j.
y..,
.s.
i l
L' n, '
ff.
At page 11-3 of the draft NUREG. in proposed Q/A 11.5.- (1) clarify l
that the access denial postulated in the question is related to j
E.
fitness for duty concerns, and (ii) state clearly the applicable reporting requirements of 10 CFR 26.73 and 10 CFR 73.71 and their
!?
respective applicability in the circumstances posed in the question.
- g;.
At page 121 of the draf t NUREG, delete the second sentence in the proposed Answer to Question 12.1.
I 1
hh, At page 12-2 of the draf t NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question 12.7 to read as follows:
i
?
" Licensees must satisfy NRC requirements."
j l
e I
L l
I i
f i
L
!i
.I i
i y
I I
h f:.
i I
h h
V l
L o
L.
N 1
e eo 1
(
e:
e j
Up$lfsD $TAfss y *"
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION wA6Hitvot0N, D. C PDbH l
t, SEP t 5 m I
l NOTE TO: Jim Conran, CRGR FROM:
Brian Crimes, CRIS, NFli i
SULJECT:
FFD IMPLEMENT /iil0N NUREG ERRATA i
After the NUREG was forwarded to tne CAGR it was noted that the draf t doccunt ccntains the following errors:
l The answer to 10.2 should end with... granted gescorted access.
f 0
o The second senterice of the answr to 6.15 should begin with: This course i
of action was adopted 45...
o A few of the referenced discussions need to be renumbered as follows:
j t
Q/A NO.
REFERENCED NO. CHANGED TO 6.3 0.12 to 6.13 10.6 6.13 to 6.14 10.8 6.6 to 6.9 and 6.13 to 6.14 j
Ke are proposing that two new questions and answers be added:
i 2.7 Must corporate officials who would respond to the EOF or TSC be (new) required to abstain from alcohol et all times or during scheduled i
work, or does the abstention requirement apply at all when there j
's no anticipated response to the EOF or TSC7 ANSWER; The abstention requirements of Section 26.20(a) pertain to working tours within the protected area or at the EOF or TSC. Corporate officials are not required by the rJ1e to abstain from alcohol simply l
because they may be called to the EOF or TSC. Should they be called l
in,theproceduralrequirementsof26.20(e) apply. Similarly, other licensee employees and contractor an.1 vendor employees (utider Section 26.23) are not required by the rule to abstain from alcohol when not f
scheduled to work within the protected area or 6t the EOF or TSC.
i t
i l
I l
i l to Enclosure 2 t
.-,e
o i
Jim Conran 2
[
5.20 If a licensed operator is selected for random testing and the (new) temporary absence fro-the control room at that time could cause a potential safety problem, what may the licensee do?
ANSWfR:
The licensee in this case may wait until the seriousness of the Situation has abated, the operator has been next shif t (or by another licensed operator) properly relieved by the, collect i
the rest room acjacent to the control room, or defer the test until the next day (without informing the operator in cuestion of any i
delays).
)
wa l
Brian Grines, NRR cc:
E. Jorcan i
G. Arlotto D. Ross t
J. Goldberg J. Sniezek L, Reyes i
?
l i
f P
t
+
_ - - _