ML20012E894
| ML20012E894 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1990 |
| From: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Claire Robb SENATE |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20012E895 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9004090017 | |
| Download: ML20012E894 (6) | |
Text
March 27,1990 f
The Honorable Charles S. Robb United States Senate i
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Robb:
~I am responding to your letter of March 7,1990, in which you forwarded a letter from an employee licensed to operate the San Onofre Nuclear Station in San Clemente, California. This individual ex aressed his concerns about the Comission's fitness-for_ duty rule and the su)jective manipulation of the nuclear plant work force.
In developing the fitness.for. duty rule, the Commission carefully considered i
the balance between the public health and safety and the rights of the individ.
~
ual, and public coments related thereto, in determining the necessary require.
ments. The enclosed NUREG 1354, " Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry:
Responses to Public Coments," and the enclosed Federal Register notice (54FR24468) summarize On page 24488 of the Federal Register notice,public coments and responses.the Comission concluded that t operation of nuclear power reactors fully justified promulgation of the rule and noted that two cases decided by the Supreme Court on March 21, 1989, indicated that the rule was a ) roper and prudent regulatory action for the protection of the public healt1 and safety.
The author of the letter correctly noted that em)1oyees of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) are not covered by tie rule.
However, NRC employees are covered by an NRC program, that was developed to achieve a drug. free work place in accordance with Executive Order 12564.
For your information, we have also enclosed a copy of NUREG-1385, " Fitness for
. Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry: Responses to Implementation Questions."
This document further indicates NRC's interest in protecting individual rights.
I trust this response adequately addresses the inquiry concerning the NRC's fitness for-duty rule.
Sincerely, 0$nal Signed Byr l'
d'alnds MJa$lylor Executive Director for Operations l
Enclosures:
1.
2.
Federal Resister Notice l
(54 FR 2d468) hO d}
1 3.
NUREG.1385 t
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE OFC
- R5GB:NRR
- BC:R5GB:NRR :* Tech. Editor :*D:DRIS
- 0GC
- ADT:NRR l NAME LLBush:cb
- PFMcKee
- BCalure
- BKGrimes
- RFonner
- FMiraglia DATE :3/20/90
_1:3/20/90
- 3/21/90
- 3/21/90
- 3/21/90
- 3/21/90
'm
' 0FC
- D:
RE,. -
- EDO
- 0CA I......:
.c.........
NAME
.T Murley MTaylor p
l DATE 90
- 3/._/90
- 3/ /90 9004090017 900327 PDR ADOCK 05000206 H
i e
J
'The Honorable Charles S. Robb-i i
)istribution w/o enclosures:
}
'entral files PDR' LPDR DRIS r/f j
RSGB r/f JMTaylor PNorry, ADM PBird OP TEMurley.
JHSniezek fHiraglia
'JGPartlow DCrutchfield DNossburg(0005238)
McAllister 0CA EDO r/f
.MBridgers(0005238)
SECY-0222 SEbneter, RII JMartin, RV RFonner, OGC JScinto LLBush
'PMcKee-BKGrimes i
l i
1
-l t
1 1
1 I
r:
3 s-L.
The Honorable Charles S. Robb United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Robb:
i l
I am responding to your letter of March 7,1990, in which you forwarded a 1
letter from an employee licensed to operate the San Onofre Nuclear Station in San Clemente, California.
This individual expressed his concerns about the mission's fitness.for. duty rule and the subjective manipulation of the nu ear plant work force, i
In dev loping the fitnes4.for. duty rule, the Comission carefully considered the balah e between the public health and safety and the rights of the indivi.
dual, and p lic coments related thereto, in determining the necessary recuire.
ments. The e losed NUREG.1354, Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Incustry:
Responses to Pu c Comments," and the enclosed Federal Register notice (54 FR 24468) su rize public comments and responses. On page 24488 of the Federal Register n (ce, the Comission concluded that the imperatives of safe operation of nuclear )qwer reactors fully justified promulgation of the rule i
and noted that two caseli decided by the Supreme Court on March 21, 1989, s
indicated that the rule was a ) roper and prudent regulatory action for the protection of the public he'h{ti and safety.
The author of the letter correctly noted that em)1oyees of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) are nqt covered by tie rule. However, NRC employees are covered by an NRC program, thatswas developed to achieve a drug-free work
+
place in accordance with Executive O'rder 12564.
N For your information, we have also enclosed a copy of NUREG.1385, " Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry: Responses to Implementation Questions."
This document further indicates NRC's inter'e t in protecting individual rights.
I trust this response adequately addresses the nquiry concerning the NRC's fitness.for duty rule.
Sincerely, James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
NUREG 1354 2.
Federal Register Notice (54 FR 24468) s 3.
NUREG.1385
/
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE j af 0FC
- R5GB:NRR'
- BC: g:NRR' : Tech. Editor ^ :D:
- 0GC
- ADT:NRR ikk ~~!" b
!bb[
f B, [s"~"~~!Rk i
~
LLB
......:...... /........:P J
DATE :3/%/90
- 3h6/90
- 3/m /90
- 3hA /90
- 3////90
- 3/Ay90 UFC
- D:NRR
- EDO
- 0CA j
NAME :TEMurley
- JMTaylor 1
DATE :3/ /90
- 3/ /90
- 3/ /90 l
t
_~
.The' Honorable Charles S. Robb United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 1
Dear Senator Robb:
1 I am responding to your letter of March 7,1990, in which you forwarded a j
letter from ah individual licensed to operate the San Onofre Nuclear Station, i
f San Clemente, California. This individual expressed his concerns about the Comission's fitness.for. duty rule and the subjective manipulation of the nuclear plant work force.
l In developing the fitness-for-duty' rule, the Comission carefully considered the balance between the public health and safety and individual rights, and 4
public coments related thereto, in deter 9 ning the necessary requirements.
l t
The enclosed NUREG-1354, " Fitness-for-My in the Nuclear Power Industry:
i Responses to Public Coments," and the (nclosed Federal Register notice (54.FR 24468)' summarize public comments and responses. On page 24488 of the 1
Federal Register notice, the Comission c'encluded that the imperatives of
+
Safe operation of nuclear power reactors fully justified promulgation of the rule and noted that two cases decided by th'q Supreme Court on March 21, 1989, indicated that the rule was a proper and prudent regulatory action for the protection of the public health and safety.
The author of the letter correctly notes that lployees of the U.S. Nuclear
' Regulatory Comission (NRC) are not covered by the rule.
NRC employees are, l
however,coveredbyanNRCprogram,whichwasdekelopedtoachieveadrug-free work place in accordance with Executive Order 12564.
For your information, we have also enclosed a copy \\
of NUREG.1385 " Fitness for I
Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry: Responses to Imp'lementation Questions."
This document )rovides further insight to the NRC's concerns with protecting individual rigits.
\\
. I trust this response adequately addresses the inquiry doncerning the NRC's I
fitness-for. duty rule.
N i
\\
t Sincerely,
\\
{
\\
i James M. Taylor
\\
Executive Director for Operations
\\
Enclosures:
4
- 1..NUREG.1354 2.
Federal. Register Notice n
~
3.
. UFG
- R5GB:NRR
- BC: Ek:NRR
- Tech. Editor :D:DRIS
- 0GC
- ADT:NRR T........ :..Mr.g.t0a... :.............. :............. :.............
'NAME.':LLBush b
- PF Km
- BCalure
- BKGrimes
- RFonner
- FMira
....l.......:.............:..............:..............:..... glia DATE 13/JO/90
- 3/ /90
- 3/21/90
- 3/ /90
- 3/ /90
- 3/ /90 0FG
- D:NRR
- EDO
- 00A
'.NAMETEMurley*
- JMTaylor DATEL:3/ /90
- 3/ /90
- 3/ /90
- x
. y v-
+
..p, q;
hIlhp
'I l'g UNITED STATES j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
.g
.g WASHINGT ON,JD, C. 20555 EDO Principal Correspondence Control
'FROM:
DUE: 03/26/90 EDO CONTROL: 0005238 DOC DT: 03/07/90 FINAL REPLY:
$^n.cCharles S. Robb TO:
~
'Jthn Bradburne, CA
' FOR SIGNATURE OF:
- GRN- **
CRC NO: 90-0249
? 'ExCcutive' Director g.',; OE SC :,
ROUTING:
CONCERNS OF CONSTITUENT RE SAF5TY & FITNESS'FOR JMartin, RV DUTY RULE DATE:.03/14/90 l '- ' ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
NRR.
Murley SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS'OR REMARKS:
pto >
NRR RECEIVEDj,, MARCH 14
+,....m,,
ACTION:-
ik
'NRR ROUTING:
MURLEY/SNIEZEK MIRAGLIA PARTLOW CRUTCHFIELD GILLESPIE MOSSBURG gyg N ACT!nv N 1
h'RR Dlg3c".
B}'
l
(
~;
l i
k
,9
.g q,
.y s,t.
i
- , p.
i c'.,
OFFICE'OF THE SECRETARY
!)
J "
k.
L;.l; CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET-l t,
[.,
- PAPER NUMBER CRC-90-0249 LOGGING DATE: Mar 14 90
'i i-c.
io a
F.
WACTION' OFFICE:
EDO-fi
- AUTHOR 1 Charles Robb--Const Ref F-AFFILIATION:
UNITED STATES SENATE L<
b
~
Mar 7 90 FILE' CODE: ID&R-14 Pt 50 i
LETTER DATE:
p.
]
Fitness'for duty rule l
I
. SUBJECT i,,
i L
' ACTION t '
Direct: Reply L,'.
,'l
. DISTRIBUTION:
OCA.to Ack,DSB
[
SPECIAL HANDLING: None t
~
t r
.c p NOTES -
o
)
DATE DUET Mar 28 90
'l
-i
'/ SIGNATU'RE:
DATE SIGNED:
' ; AFFILIATION i;
t s t o,
s b
j
,.t n
.r.
3
.c
- v).
j.,
t
.g..
- 'i o
I
-/
j i-h.
[
q
\\
f Date-S ~\\ Wl 0 4 7.,
m
-rg l,
)lmi-I I YC k
_(
.3 v.
3 4
o EUO 00523a
~~~
..j i
ti, 's. ;
f s