ML20029E209
| ML20029E209 | |
| 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 | |
| ML20029E210 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9405170233 | |
| Download: ML20029E209 (9) | |
Text
-
MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M. Taylor, Acting Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Chairman Committee to Review Generic Requirements
SUBJECT:
MINUTES OF CRGR MEETING NUMBER 170 The Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) met on Wednesday, September 27,1989 from 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, and 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 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.
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).
Original Signed By:
7 C. J. Heltemos, Jr.
EdwardL. Jordan,bhairman 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.)
B. Morris (w/ enc.)
cc: Next page S. Treby CRGR CF (w/ enc.)
T. King (w/ enc.)
W. Little CRGR SF (w/ enc.)
S. Bahadur (w/ enc.)
E. Jordan (w/ enc.)
J. Heltemes (w/ enc.)
J. Conran (w/ enc.)
D. Al1ison (w/ enc.)
0FC CRGR:AE00 AE00
- C/CRG : EOD NAME h k g CJH emes : EL rdan BEG)is T~iiihiiTiiisii T~~~~~T---
'----~~T~~~-
9405170233 891018 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY PDR REVGP NRCCRGR PEETING170 -
1 i
^1. 1 a
j cc w/ enclosures:
4 Commission (5)
SECY J. Lieberman i
P, Norry M. Malsch Regional Administrators i
}
CRGR Members i
i 1
me a
i e
i 8
4 b
3 1
i i
i 2
4 o
i i
1 1
a e
4 i
7 i
4
.---,.--e.,
w,...
,.,-n, w.<
s ATTENDANCE LIST FOR CRGR MEETING NO. 170 September 27, 1989 CRGR MEMBERS D. Ross (Acting Chairman)
J. Goldberg G. Arlotto L. Reyes J. Sniezek CRGR STAFF D. Allison J. Conran NRC STAFF L. Bush P. McKee G. McPeek N. Ervin B. Morris S. Bahadur l
__ to the Minutes of CRGR Meeting No. 170 Proposed NUREG - 0's and A's on Fitness for Outy September 27, 1989 l
TOPIC P. McKee (NRR) and L. Bush (NRR) presented for CRGR review a proposed NUREG documenting staf f 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 1.
The document submitted to CEGR 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, B. Grimes to J. Conran, transmit-l ted errata to the draft NUREG in l'above and two additional proposed questions / answers to be included in the NUREG guidance.
(See Attachment 1 to this Enclosure.)
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS 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 transmitteo 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 the generic letter that transmits the NUREG.
2.
The Committee recommended specific changes to the proposed NUREG as 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...."
Also (referring to the word " positions" in the wording that was deleted), the staff should review carefully the remainder of the draft NUREG and substitute the word " answers" for the word
" positions" wherever it appears.
b.
At page 1-1 of the draft HUREG, in the first sentence of the second paragraph, delete the introductory clause so that the sentence begins with the words, " Publication of this report.
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, 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 preposed Answer to Question 4.2 to read as follows:
"Furthermore, that understanding must be reinforced nominally j
each 12 months (see definition of " nominal" at page 12-1).
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:
"What if the supervisor transfers before three months; will the supervisor avoid the training?"
At page 4-3 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question g.
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
_ = _ _
_.. _ - - _ _ - - _ - - - - _ _ - - - - perform the contracted s>rvices and, at a minimum, meets the requirements of Part 26 which pertain to a licensee's testing 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 HUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question 5.4 to read as follows:
"The NRC would use reasonable interpretations of Part 26 to determine if a licensee's actions are prudent."
s k.
At pages 5-3 and 5-4 of the draft NUREG, delete the last six sentences 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."
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 i
provide some protection from undetected tampering, the licensee should have reasonable assurance that couriers employed to pick up and deliver specimens meet normal expectations of honesty
-. and integrity, such as contract couriers.
Postal Service 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 sentence.
(Do not include the names and addresses of the five sources suggested by NIDA.)
p.
At page 6-1 of the draft 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. "
~
At page 6-4 of the draft NUREG, in the last sentence of the proposed q.
Answer to Question 6.8, delete the words "...particularly those that fall just short of the cut-off levels...."
)
At page 6-6 of the draft NUREG, clarify the proposed Answer to r.
Question 6.11 by stating explicitly that the MR0 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 MR0 is expected to make judgments 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."
At page 8-3 of the draft NUREG, add a Question and Answer to address v.
testing requirements for individuals granted temporary access.
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...."
At page 10-3 of the draft NUREG, delete the last sentence in the x.
proposed Answer to Question 10.5
~-
l 1 y.
At page 10-5 of the draft NUREG, substitute the following for the proposed Answer to Question 10.9:
"The enforcement action will be based upon an evaluation of each case, and may be dependent on the actions taken by management to the preliminary information."
At page 10-6 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to z.
Question 10.10 to read as follows:
l i
" Licensee actions in response to such offsite activities of
)
their employees is not addressed by the rule.
Actions similar to...."
At page 10-6 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to aa.
Question 10.11 to read as follows:
"The rule does not address offsite drug arrests; however, the NRC assumes that the licensee's existing personnel policies l
deal with criminal acts, particularly felony convictions.
If an employee with an offsite drug arrest is retained by the j
l licensee,...."
bb. At page 10-6 of the draft NUREG, simplify proposed Q/A 10.12 as follows:
j "Is a self referral to EAP considered a first test failure?"
i Answer:
No.
l l
At page 10-8 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to cc.
Question 10.17 to read as follows:
"The NRC expects that the industry will take the lead in developing such a list."
dd.
At page 11-1 of the draft NUREG, the staff should conferm the wording in Q/A 11.1 to that in Q/A 3.2 regarding the meaning of the term "on-call."
(See item 2.e above.)
I At page 11-2 of the draft HUREG, replace the second and third ee.
sentences of the proposed Answer to Question 11.4 with the following:
"Although the rule does not define the term "on-call," a l
licensee may determine that "on-call" is a " working tour" l
(see discussion in Q/A 3.2 above).
Also, change the last sentence (bottom of page 11-2 and top of page 11-3) to read as follows:
"For example, it may be prudent to report a situation involving a site manager whose BAC is less than 0.04%, but has alcohol on his breath because this may come :.o the attention of the NRC j
and the public through the news media."
l t
I i
1 1
\\
ff.
At page 11-3 of the draft NUREG, in proposed Q/A 11.5, (i) clarify that the access denial postulated in the question is related to fitness-for-duty concerns, and (ii) state clearly the applicable reporting requirements of 10 CFR 26.73 and 10 CFR 73.71 and their i
respective applicability in the circumstances posed in the question.
gg.
At page 12-1 of the draft NUREG, delete the second sentence in the proposed Answer to Question 12.1.
hh.
At page 12-2 of the draft NUREG, change the proposed Answer to Question l
12.7 to read as follows:
l l
" Licensees must satisfy NRC requirements."
s t
l l
I l
l l
l