ML20056C361
| ML20056C361 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/12/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR31467, REF-10CFR9.7 AD68-2, AD68-2-023, AD68-2-23, AD68-2-26, AD68-2-27, M930505, NUDOCS 9305200124 | |
| Download: ML20056C361 (7) | |
Text
l IJLS
^\\
/pa o*c,,S e
o UNITED SVATES fjp/,g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ya
$c-
,I W ASH tNGTON, D.C. 20555 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE I8 E
REFER TO:
M930505
%, \\# g #'
May 12, 1993 OFFICE OF THE SE CR E T AR Y 7
MEMORANDUM FOR:
James M.
Taylor r
Executive Director for Op>/3tions FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk,Secretaph
[
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFF::RP ) TION / DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 4:30 P.M.,
WEDlES AY, MAY 5,
- 1993, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENC5 ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 1.
SECY-93-089 - Final Amendments to 10 CFR Parts 26, 70, and 73
[
to Establish Fitness-for-Duty Reauirements for Licensees i
Authorized to Possess, Use, or Transport Formula Ouantities of Stratecic Soecial Nuclear Material The Commission, by a 5-0* vote, approved a final rule which establishes fitness-for-duty requirements for licensees authorized to possess, use, or transport formala quantities of unirradiated strategic special nuclear material.
The Federal Register Notice should be modified to incorporate the changes proposed by the staff (copy attached) in response to Commissioner Curtiss' comments on his vote sheet, reviewed by the Regulatory Publication Branch, ADM, and returned for signature and publication.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
6/1/93)
Attachment:
As stated
- Section 201 of the Energy Reorganization Act, 42 U.S.C.
- 55841, provides that action of the Commission shall be determined by a
" majority vote of the members present."
Commissioner Remick was not present when this item was affirmed.
Accordingly, the formal vote of the Commission was 4-0 in favor of the decision.
Commissioner Remick, however, had previously indicated that he would approve this paper and had he been present he would have affirmed his prior vote.
140024 0
[
A 7e 9305200124 930512 PDR 10CFR PT9.7 PDR
(
__.__..z.
-I cc:- The Chairman i
Commissioner Rogers i
Commissioner Curtiss Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque OGC OIG f
Office Directors,-Regions, ACRS, ACNW, OP, SDBU/CR (via E-Mail ASLBP (via FAX)
a l
r'!
i i
5 I
k s
l e
I i
-i i
i e
I
[
t f
i 3.
Comment.
Current NRC and T;)E requirements already address trustworthiness of i
.nel by requiring security clearances for certain f
jobs.
l Response.
Current NRC regulations do require security clearances 4
for certain jobs.
However, the security clearance investigation alone might i
not detect a drug habit. Moreover, the current 5-year period between reinvestigations is too long for the timely detection of individuals-who a
1 become substance abusers during that time.
4.
Comment.
Because of the " Drug-free Workplace Act of 1988," adequate drug and alcohol programs are already in effect at the proposed licensee l
l facilities.
j Response.
When issuing the Part 26 fitness-for-duty rule in 1989, the Commission determined that, to be both effective and appropriate for assuring protection of the health and safety of the public, the fitness-for-I duty program must include random, unannounced, urinalysis for drugs and breath i
testing for alcohol. The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 does not require l
testing under any circumstances. Although a licensee's program may currently l
1 1
contain some testing provisions, in the Commission's view, it-would not be.
)
adequate without the provision for random testing.
i i
5.
Comment.
Implementation costs for the new rule would be very high i
but the results would be minimal.
Response. A facility that already has a limited fitness-for-duty j
program would have less implementation and continuing costs than one that does.
not.
However, the costs may be as high as $500,000 the first year and
\\
I 5400,000 annually thereafter. On the other hand, random testing of persons in l
l a position to divert or conceal a diversion of SSNM at the facility would l
strengthen the safeguarding of the SSNM. Moreover, experience with random i
I a
,wc--
y
testing programs implemented by NRC and.Other federal agencies indicates th'at random testing effectively detects and strongly deters substance abuse in the workpl ace.
6.
Comment.
Any category of worker that deals with the physical material or its primary " paper trail" snould not be exempted from random testing. NRC should require licensees to ensure that workers do not come to work so impaired by distraction, fatigue, or infirmity that they cannot perform at a minimally acceptable level.
Response.
The revisions to 10 CFR Part 26 will require random testing for all employees who:
(1) Are granted unescorted access to SSNM that is directly useable in the manufecture of a nuclear explosive device and would be easily concealed and removed by an individual (Category lA Material);
(2) Create or have access to procedures or records for safeguarding SSNM; (3) Make measurements of Category lA Material; (4) Transport or escort Category IA Material; or (5) Guard Category 1A Material.
Category IA Material is defined in s 26.3 Definitions. The other impairments listed by the commenter are addressed in 55 26.10 and 26.20 of this rule.
7.
Comment.
The proposed drug and alcohol testing requirements should not be applied to railroads because they would duplicate the Federal Railroad Administration's testing program.
(1) Granted unescorted access to Category IA Material; (2) Given responsibilities to create or have access to procedures or records for safeguarding SSNM; l
(3) Given responsibilities to measure Category IA Material; f
(4) Given responsibilities to transport or escort Category IA Material; or I
(5) Given responsibilities to guard Category IA Material will be subject to the program.
I These requirements have no identifiable environmental impact.
The environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact on which this determination is based are available for inspection at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), Washington, DC. Single i
copies of the environmental assessment and the finding of no significant 3
impact may be obtained from Stanley P. Turel, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 492-3739, i
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This final rule amends information collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq). These requirements and amendments were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0146.
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 29 hours3.356481e-4 days <br />0.00806 hours <br />4.794974e-5 weeks <br />1.10345e-5 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the
t z
1.1 BACKGROUND
I fiRC issued FFD regulations on June 7,1989 (54 FR 24494) applicable to licensees authorized to operate a nuclear power reactor. The regulations i
became effective January 3,1990. The regulations require affected licensees to establish and implement written policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant personnel are not under the influence of any substance which adversely affects performance.
j The FFD regulations establish chemical testing requirements to test for the use of alcohol and drugs.
Four types of chemical t l
- 1) preaccess, 2) random, 3) for-cause, and 4) followup.psting are required Preaccess chemical i
testing may detect drug use prior to granting access, but the individual knows 1
about the testing and can potentially evade detection.
Preaccess testing does not address detection and deterrence in the workplace.
For-cause testing is linked to job performance, but has a relatively low deterrent effect and does not provide for early detection.
For-cause testing depends on a supervisor's i
ability to detect problems and willingness to make referrals.
When problems are not detected, for-cause testing may not be initiated until after an incident has occurred.
Followup testing is essentially a procedure to verify continued abstinence.
It does not provide early detection, but it may have some deterrent effect.
In conjunction with issuing the Part 26 FFD rules in 1989, llRC determined that, to be effective, chemical testing must include random unannounced urinalysis for drugs and breath testing for alcohol.
Moreover, evidence derived from random testing programs implemented by other federal agencies indicates that random testing effectively detects and strongly deters substance abuse in the workplace The existing Part 26 regulations are limited to NRC licensees authorized I
to construct or operate a nuclear power reactor. The NRC noted, however, that in the future it may consider the need to extend the coverage of the rule to 10 CFR 26.24.
2 V. Barnes, et al., Fitness for Duty k, the Nuclear Power industry:
A review of Technicrl issues, NUREG/CR-5227, September 1988.
F w
m
um
~
administrations. The anticipated cost to the carriers to incorporate the NRC's rulemaking (include testing for alcohol) is therefore expected to be relatively small.
C05T CENTERS e&W 1st Yr, ELW-AnNel NFS 1et Yr.
NFS-ArwW Deve:oo Policies /Proced. ares 843.300 0
t 43,300 o
Awareness Train;ng Program 887,500 o
$35.000 0
Chernicet Test.ng
$ 110.000
$110.000 643,810 843,810 Cuality Assessment 41,s00 82,500
$1,000
$1,000 Addit;onal C:ericci Personnel
$100,170
$100,17o 8100,170 3100,170
!/ed.cs! Rowsw Othcer 8101,2s0
$101,250 0101,2s0
$1ol,s50 Employee Assistance Program
$115.000
$116,000 8118,000
$118,000 TOTAL ESTiJATED CO5TS
$ 561,000 6430.000 8440,500
$361,000 The costs, which will be incurred by affected licensees when the final rulemaking becomes effective, are difficult to estimate with precision. A licensee's ability to integrate the rules with an existing FFD program will have a significant effect on costs.
For example, a licensee may be able to incorporate the initial awareness training in GET sessions or limit the number of new employees needed to implement the rule if duties associated with the rulamaking can be abscrbed by existing employees.
The NUMARC estimates of actual costs incurred by reactor licensees in 1990, as reported in its September 20, 1991 letter to the NRC, were derived using different assumptions and cost centers from those used in this Regulatory Analysis. Nevertheless, the estimated costs are comparable to those displayed above, especially considering that total employment at a reactor typically falls between the employment levels at the affected NFS and B&W facilities. NUMARC's estimated annual operating cost is approximately
$565,000 per reactor. This figure includes training, suitable inquirye and lost productivity costs while in employee is off the job for chemical testing.
NUMARC also estimates that initial year start-up costs are approximately 584,000 per reactor.
3.11