ML20151F486
| ML20151F486 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/07/1988 |
| From: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ACRS-T-1658, NUDOCS 8804180284 | |
| Download: ML20151F486 (69) | |
Text
..
_ - -.. _. A6 CST-M8 c.
uR,2\\A_,
l UNITED STATES O
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
.=====..==========
============== -=========== -=========i In the Matter of:
)
336th ACRS MEETING
)
)
"'~7 i
i
- ' f f;np
^
'iiNv l
{,
g
,t
.,.. +
s.w.
l Pages:
1 through 66 Place:
Washington, D.C.
Date:
April 'i, 1988
========================================================= -
I HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OgledsIRaporte O
- m. t s-s.w s* =
WasMngton, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 8804130284 8 804 0~/
PDR ACH3 T-1658 pop i
i
I 1
PUBLIC NOTICE BY THE 2
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0hMISSION'S f
3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS r
S r
6 l
7 The' contents of this stenographic transcript of the 8
proceedings of the United St3tes Nuclear Regulatory t
9 Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS),
10 as reported herein, is an uncorrected record-of the discussions 11 recorded at the meeting held on the above date.
12 No member of the ACRS Staff and no participant at
(
13 this meeting accepts any responsibility for errors or
'14 inaccuracies of statement or data contained in this transcript.
15
[
16 i
t 17 18 19 20 21 l
22 23 24 25 j
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
i l
I UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I) 2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS 3
l i
4 [ In the Matter of
)
II
)
5 I! 336th ACRS MEETING
)
[
)
6 j.
i
)
7 1.
3 l
- Thursday, April 7, 1988 9
Room 1046 10 Washington, D.C.
20555 II The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 12 h
'l pursuant to notice, at 8:30 a.m.
b I
BEFORE:
DR. WILLIAM KERR Chairman g
Professor of Nuclear Engineering 15 ;
Director, Office of Energy Research University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 16 l
g l ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT:
I l
DR. FORREST J.
REMICK gg l
Vice Chairman
[
Associate Vice-President for Research
{
Professor of Nuclear Engineering
,0 j
The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania 21 l
DR. HAROLD W.
LEWIS j
Professor of Physics l
')
h Department of Physics
[
University of California
- 3 L
Santa Barbara, california f
(~'s 24 O
25
[
Heritage Reporting Corporation
[
im>u..
il
2 I
ACRS MEMBERS PRESENT (CONTINUED:)
2 MR. CARLYLE MICHELSON Retired Principal Nuclear Engineer 3
Tennessee Valley Authority i
Knoxville, Tennessee, and 4
Retired Director, Office for Analysis & Evaluation of Operational Data 5 l U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
6 DR. DADE MOELLER 7
Professor of Engineering in Environmental Health Associate Dean for Continuing Education 8
School of Public Health j
Harvard University 9
- l Boston, Massachusetts 10 1
DR. PAUL G.
SHEWMON Professor, Metallurgical Engineering Department Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 12 DR. CHESTER P.
SIESS lllll 13 Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering University of Illinois 14 Urbana, Illinois l
15 DR. MTRTIN J.
STEINDLER Director, Chemical Technology Division 16 Argonne National Laboratory Argonne, Illinois 17 p MR. DAVID A.
WARD 38 Research Manager on Special Assignment l
E.I.
du Pont de Nemours & Company 19 Savannah River Laboratory Aiken, South Carolina 20 i
MR. CHARLES J. WYLIE 21 'j Retired Chief Engineer l
Electrical Division 22
')
j Duke Power Company
,'/
i Charlotte, North Carolina 23 0 o
h N
[b c
25 [
4 I:
- I Heriloge Reporting Corporoflon g
3 1
ACRS COGNIZANT STAFF MEMBER:
O I
2 Raymond Fraley 3
NRS STAFF PRESENTERS:
4 I Grian Grimes Loren Bush i
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 g
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1
20 i
21 O
23 l
'I i
25 i
I Heritage Reporting Corporation I
hl cmi.a
l 4
1 EEESEEE1N_g!
2 (8:30 a.m.)
3 CHAIRMAN KERR:
The meeting will come to order.
4 DR. REMICK:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
5 This subject has been before you several. times in 6
the last six years or so.
7 Just a little background.
In August of 1982, the Commission published a proposed rule on fitness for duty, 8
9 but based on public comments and reaction from the newly 30 formed NUMARC, at that time the Commission decided to issue 11 a policy statement on fitness-for-duty programs which was 12 issued in 1986.
I believe 1986.
And at the time the Com-lllll 13 mission indicated that they would reconsider after about g4 eighteen months the implementation of voluntary fitness-for-15 duty programs by nuclear power plants.
16 This past December the Commission did meet with 17 representatives of industry including NUMARC and INPO I be-18 lieve and I think that what they found was that first that
[9 all licensees had implemented fitness-for-duty programs that 20 followed the guide that had been developed by Edison Electric 23 Institute.
s 22 In general, it's my impression that those are
(
)
l working reasonably well.
However, they do lack some unifor-23 frN 24 l mity in several aspects.
For example, about one third of the
{
25 l
licensees utilize random chemical testing for drugs.
That's l
j Heritage Reporting Corporation j
m u.
r3 5
l
-not a requirement of.the EEI guide.
And in fact, when we i
2 wrote our letter on-the policy statenent, we pointed out that 3
we thought that that was an important element and we encou-O-
~
4 raged licensees to incorporate that into their fitness-for-
?
s_
duty programs.
i 6
Some of those who have implemented it.and think 7
it's a good idea.to have ran' dom testing have been challenged 8
by bargaining units, have gone through grievances.
I do 9
know that Arkansan Nuclear I was successful in that.
There lo are some utilities under litigation and so forth, 11 DR. SHEWMON:
Successful means what?
12 DR. REMICK:
Excuse me.
They were successful.in g
13 implementing that as part of their plan.
They won out in the- -
14 I can't think--it's not a grievance.
What do you call it 15 when you have--
16 MP. WARD:
Arbitration?
17 DR. REMICK:
Arbitration.
Thank you very much.
18 That's the word I'm looking for.
19 DR. SHEWMON:
I just want to know.
Whose victory 20 was called a success?
21 DR. REMICK:
Does it show a bias?
Probably does, 22 huh?
l
.O 23 That was one aspect that is not uniform, and that j
24 is chemical testing.
Only about a third apparently have it.
O 25 The other are there are inconsistent non-uniform standards
{
Heritoge Reporting Corporation mmn
c
>?
6 t
i I
or threshholds to determine whether a person is fit'for duty
.'()
-f 2
with various drugs and-alcohol levels and so forth.
There are l
3 a variety of threshholds that have been established because 4
it's not defined.
i 5-And the other ic in another area in which there are 6
non-uniformitiesris.the; management' actions that are to be t..
7 taken in response to finding somebody or determining somebody 8
not fit for duty.
9 So after that the Commission'through a. Staff re-10 quirements memo has directed the Staff to-proceed with the i
11 development of a rule.
The Staff has done that.
We.had a
[
l 12 draft and the Subcommittee met I believe on the 27th of lllll 13 March, if I recall, and considered that.and the Staff is in 14 today to tell us about that proposed rule.
15 Has it been through CRGR yet?
It has?
Is it i
16 before the Commission yet?
Or about ready to go?
i 17 I'm sorry?
l 18 MR. GRIMES:
Not yet.
19 DR. REMICK:
Not yet.
About ready to go to the 20 Commission.
So with that as background, I turn the meeting
[
21
- over, t
22 Brian, are you--
l O
i 23 CHAIRMAN KERR Excuse me.
Let me ask one ques-f t
24 tion.
You mentioned that there was a non-uniformity in the
[}
25 treatment of people who were found unfit for duty.
Does this Heritoge Reporting Corporation f
ani.
i 7
'l I
O-.
.I imply that some of them were permitted to go on duty even 2
though they were unfit?
3 DR. REMICK:
I can't answer that'.
I don't know if 4
the-staff can or not.
t CHAIRMAN KERR:. Okay.
5 6
DR. REMICK:
'Can you address those non-uniformities?
7 MR. GRIMES:' Yes'.
8 Incidentally, we did offor to NUMARC if they wished-f 9
to have a representative from the industry come address us.
1 10 And they indicated that they would prefer not to.
That in--
11 dustry does not have a position and so they decided not to 12 come today.
But appreciated the opportunity.
g 13 CHAIRMAN KERR:
Fitness has nothing to do with j
l 14 training.
It has to do with drugs and--
15 DR. REMICK: Well, that's one of the things we'll
[
16 find out.
Fitness for duty has many broad connotations, l
j 17 However, this rule is primarily, 99.9 percent, addressed on l
4 Is drug and alcohol abuse.
And the impairment resulting.
r j
19 CHAIRMAN.! ERR:
Okay, thank you.
i 20 DR. LEWIS:
There's in fact an ambiguity in the
-i 21 rule.
22 DR. REMICK: Unless it's been corrected and we will I
- O 23 hear that.
24 DR. LEWIS:
There was a week ago.
{
t 2$
CHAIRMAN KERR:
Please continue.
Heritoge Reporting Corporation t
l
<m> mm f
'I 8
t t
I MR. GRIMES:
Brian Grimes, Division of Reactor I
(:1-2 Inspection and Safeguards.
!l s
i 3
The Committee has first--Dr. Remick has an outline O
?
4 that I don't know if it's been passed out yet.
j r
k 5
DR. REMICK:
Yes, it;has.
3 6'
MR. GRIMES: 'It~has? ~0kay.
That I'll talk from.
I E
y 7
A couple of, points thatzwere raised _that I should
_s.
t 8
indicate the rule"is still in process of"finalization, so there are a few points,today th't mayjgo'to the Commission 9
a i
10 differently and may indeed well change after the Commission l
l 11 reviews it before it goes out as a proposed rule.
[
12 I'd like to just go through the rule and then as i
i 13 questions como up, clarifications come up, we can hit those, f
- lllll i
14 Please interrupt at any time.
j i
15 The scope of the rule is for operating nuclear i
i j
15 power plants.- At this time we're not proposing to apply it i
i 1
i 17 to construction permits or other licensees.
However, we are k
18 asking for public comments on the extent to which fitness-i i
i i
19 for-duty rules should be applied to other facilities.
[
[
j 20 With respect to operating power plants, the people I
21 that are covered are those with unescorted access tt the l
i 22 protected area.
And that's the primary population.
l 23 In addition, we have added those licensee and
{
l-
[}
contractor personnel who are required to respond to the Tech-24 25 nical Support Center and Emergency Operations Facility in the i
Heritoge Reporting Corporation j
o.o =.
]
9 I
event of an emergency.
The rule does not apply to NRC em-l l
ployees.
It's the NRC's intent to have a comparable program
'~
2 i
3 {
in place for their own employees who will be needing unos-f^x i'
l i
4 l corted access to nuclear power plants.
5 There was a point that the Subcommittee raised that 6
the draft rule was not clear on whether an overall fitness-l f
for-duty program was specified or it only applied to drugs.
7 li We have clarified our intent there.
There is a specification 8
9 for an overall fitness-for-duty program now, but the only 10 specific requirements relate to drug abuse, not alcohol and I
11 not other things in drug abuse.
i 12 DR. SHEWMON:
Not knowing anything about fitness lllll 13 for duty, one might think that fitness in duty implied 14 training and knowledge also.
If you were naive.
When you 15 talk about a broader fitness for duty, what do you have in 16 mind?
MR. GRIMES:
Physical and mental impairment would 17 I;
be two of the things, or any other condition that would pre-18
]Il 19
! vent normal functioning.
l DR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
20 0
21 MR. GRIMES:
It does not include specific adequacy i
22 i of training for a specific task.
3 i
l l
DR. LEWIS:
This is a can of worms, isn't it?
23 I
(~);
[
Because you don't mean below average I.Q. when you say mental 24
\\_
q 25 y impairment.
You mean less than it was a few weeks ago or u
d q
Heritage Reporting Corporation g
inua U
'10 i
L i
something like that.
Which still may be better than other
()
2 people's normal.
So it's going to be awfully-hard to define.
l 3
MR. GRIMES:
We believe that there are general f'
IL(])~
4 programs in place now in the industry that accomplish most 5
of these objectivee.
In fact, we believe the industry has
.y b
6 done a very good job in putting in place drug abuse programs
~
7 with certain limitations partly because.of legal constraints 8'
and other constraints on random testing, and some inconsis-9 tency between plants on' cut-off levels and.on; management i
10 actions in response to identified drug. problems.
[
Why is al'ohol omitted?
l il DR. MOELLER:
c 12 MR. GRIMES:
Well, the current proposal is that j
llllh 13 things such as alcohol or other physical or mental impairment f
.14 be taken care of through the normal licensee processes.
The 7
i l
15 philosophy of the rule is to try to specify specifically only
[
16 those things that we think need to be treated by a rule and e
i 17 those things which seem to be handled adequately are' going t'
[
t t
la be left under the general broad category of "You shall have j
j 19 a fitness-for-duty rule."
M DR. SHEWMON:
I would presume that utilities like i
i, 21 almost any other company I know would have a rule against l
1 22 either drinking or possessing alcoholic beverages on site 23 during working hours.
}
24 MR. GRIMES:
Right.
That's a good example.
l
[
l 4
25 DR. REMICK:
Brian, I'm not sure--you said it's i
?
\\
\\
1 Heritoge Reporting Corporation
= =
t
o
[
11 s
I going to require a broad fitness for duty, but the NRC speci-l
()
2 ficity would be on drugs, is that right?~
3 MR. GRIMES:
Right.
4-DR. REMICK:
Now, have you oliminated any reference 5
to alcohol because the version we saw did have in there--
}
~
6 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
7 DR. REMICK: --[f you suspect somebody,the method 8
would be a breath analyzer.
.{
9 MR. GRIMES: f Yes, we hs.d.an earlier version which l
/
i addressedalcohokfor'"for~cause"testing.'
{
10 II DR. REMICK:
Right.
12 MR. GRIMES:
We removed that.
lllh 13 DR..REMICK:
Okay.
14 MR. GRIMES:
And alcohol is entirely left out to-15 the general good practice of utilities.
16 DR. REMICK:
All right.
17 DR.-LEWIS:
Can I just pursue for one moment the 18 question--you say one expects that alcohol will be taken 19 care of by normal programs, but the inference is that that 20 isn't true of drug addiction.
That they will not be taken 21 care of by normal programs.
Is that true?
22 MR. GRIMES:
That's true.
23 DR. LEWIS:
I see.
24 MR. GRIMES: Moving on to the drug test requirements 25 in the proposed rule.
There would be testing required prior Heritoge Reporting Corporation mem
12 i
I to initial unescorted access, "for cause" testing, follow-O 2
up testing to verify continued abstinence, and random testing f
3 and the rate here is slightly changed from that in the earlier O
1 4
rule and it may change again as we finalize the rule.
We 8
don't have a particular basis for the percent per year of the f
i 6
' tested population who should be subjected to random testing 7
except that the Coast Guard has a program that uses about 8
125 percent.
There's an Executive Order that specifies 100 percent essentially for-federal agencies.
There is a Navy 10 practice of I believe even more,than 125 percent currently.
[
So one of the things we'll bc#looking for during the comment 12 period is any basis relating'to deterrents and reasonablo h
13 probability of detection for these testing frequencies.
14 We are putting out a number, but at this point 15 it doesn't have a great deal of basis.
16 DR. SHEWMON:
Now, is this a random sample each t
17 time and how many times, or does it guarantee that everybody 18 will be tested at least once and some twice, when you say i
i 19 125 percent?
j 20 MR. GRIMES:
No.
A rate of testing as is specified
[
i j
21 will not guarantee everyone is tested in any particular fre-
[
22 l
quency.
j 23 DR. SHEWMON: The tests come at something once a j
?
24 mor>3 or--
25 MR. GRIMES:
Well, the normal practice is about f
i Heritoge Reporting Corporation l
I m
~
13 g l once a month or you could have a weekly, if you desired.
P l
It's to be an unannounced type of thing so a continuous pro-2 1
lh l
cess if you have a large population is the about the most 3
'~1 ll efficient way to do it.
4 i
5 h DR. REMICK:
But the proposed rule will state 100 H
f 6 j percent though and then you are asking for comments?
I f
7 j MR. GRIMES:
Comments on what it shou.d be.
100 g
percent is essentially what the NRC is currently proposing.
Fj DR. REMICK:
And that's a change from the 125 per-9 1
l cent.
10 l
11 MR. GRIMES:
125 percent within the version of the i
{ Subcommittee.
i llll 13 DR. LEWIS:
Is this based on an analysis of how h
g4 long addictions generally last because the point is to cull is from the work force those people who are addicted to drugs 16 and if a normal addiction lasts ten years, then probably you 1
1 17 j don't ha"e to c~
ch everybody on the average every year or u
gg h even 70 p'<.,,ent or 60 percent every year, because you'll end it i
39 up catching everybody.
There is some kind of optimum fre-quency that depends on how lotig you are willing to let an 20 t
2
[ addiction go undetected.
0 MR. GRIMES:
I'm not a drug expert, but not all
(
)
4
[drugsare strictly addictives.
Some are just drugs of choice 23
- 4 and that people choose to indulge in.
And there are certain gm s
()
J5 reLiduals in their bodies and there's not a clear scientific Heritage Reporting Corporation e,,r s>s.w
- 1
14 l
basis for saying that these people are impaired or not im-ld paired with maybe an indication of drug levels in the body 2
1 h
3 {
is certainly an indication that at some time a person very
'l i
~
N likely was impaired and very likely could be impaired in the 4
!I
$ [
future.
So that rather than addiction is the basis for the a
6 [ rule.
l 7 0 DR. LEWIS:
I guess I'm addressing the question 8
l of whether the time interval is related to experience and i
9
{ the duration of drug addiction.
U f
MR. GRIMES:
No.
In our view it's more related 10 1
il i to the deterrent effect and a reasonable probability of 4
i 12 1
identifying someone who is using this material.
lllh 13 DR. LEWIS:
But that's what I'm addressing.
A i
14 j reasonable probability per year and if something were to i
15 change the earth's orbit and the year were to become twice as k
[
long, you'd still ask for the same probability per year.
16
- i
]
MR. GRIMES:
Well, the probability varies with the 17 18 j drug type--
19 DR. LEWIS:
Of course.
[c 20 '.
MR. GRIMES:
Because drugs stay in the bodies for l:
21 h different lengths of time so it's detectable for different U
22 4 lengths of time.
It has a different biological--
,- 3
(
)
p 23 [
DR. LEWIS:
I'm addresaing the different time scale.
l 24 Not the time during which people are detectable, but the time
~')
25 over which a drug addict can expect to stay undetected, which
(
Heritage Reporting Corporollon J
<m> as ase h
15 I
is in turn a function of.how long one stays an addict. ' If.
T],, -
2 you should take an extreme case, if a typical addiction lasts 3
thirty years, then really it would be sufficient to catch-("%
k 4
everyone every three or four years, because at the end of
's
. ten years you'd-have~a relatively drug-free work force.
6 MR. GRIMES:
Except that there's a good deal of 7
turnover in the work force.
8 DR. LEWIS:
I understand that.
Okay.
So you're 9
right.
There's another time scale which is the time scale 10 for turnover in the work force.
I'm only asking whether the 11 rate is matched against those instrinsic' time scales--
12 MR. GRIMES:
No, we have not done that.
lllh I
13 DR. LEWIS:
I see.
14 MR. GRIMES:
The testing standards are to be. measured 15 against the Health and Human Services--I'm sorry.
The HHS 16 guidelines, which have been published in the Federal Register 17 for comment at this time.
And also there's a separate HHS 18 certification standard which we expect laboratories to meet.
19 This is one point where we are still struggling a 20 bit.
In one view, we would provide that only HHS standards i
1 21 may be used for either initial screening or confirmatory l
22 screening.
Another approach would be to specify that dif-()
I i
23 ferent standards could be used.
Perhaps louer cut-off levels i
I 24 could be used or an uncertified type of lab could be used for
)
25 initial screening, but no personnel actions could be taken Heritage Reporting Corporation mm
i
-16 I
based on initial screening.
That any personnel actions would 2
have to be taken based on results from a fully qualified lab 3
'at-_the appropriate HHS cut-off levels.
O
'kJ 4
'So that's one area we're still debating how-to put 5
out in the propoced rule, and may be a case that we'll likely 6
ask for comments on how it should be in the final rul'e.
~
7 DR. STEINDLER:
Why is,there an argument on this 8
topic at all?
9 MR. GRIMES:
Well, there's no--
10 DR. STEINDLER:
Is it an' economic question?
11 MR. GRIMES:
It's' personally-an economic question.
12' If a lab fully meets the HHS guidelines, it must have a'Medi-h 13 cal Officer invol ed.
Some 'iltilities are doing-on-site 14
. screening with perhaps not the full-time Medical Officer in-15 volved in that.
So there's some advantage:to encouraging on-z 16 site screening which would be a more rapid feedback of the 17 process--of the drug results.
18 CHAIRMAN KERR:
Since it is the Staff view that the 19 current alcohol programs are successful or appropriate, 20_
is-any analog to the alcohol testing program being' considered 21 rol the drug testing program?
23 MR. GRIMES:
Well, what we've decided to propose 23 that we get some consistency between utilities in terms of 24.
these cut-off levels and the quality of labs, management 25 actions, we thought that was an important aspect to address.
Heritage Reporting Corporation msm m-
17 I
CHAIRMAN KERR:
I'm not talking about consistency G
2 among drug testing programs.
What I'm asking--you indicated 3
the current alcohol control programs.were appropriate in your O
4 view.
I wondered if anybody had looked at.those to see whe-s
.5 l ther one could learn something from them in setting up a drug 6
control program.
7 MR. GRIMES:
I think the programs that the utilities 8
have set up for drugs and alcohol are really comparable.
I 9
think.the process used for drugs and alcohol by a utility is 10 now comparable.
In fact, the EEI guidelines--
11 CHAIRMAN KERR:,Maybe I misunderstood.
I thought 12 you said that you were convinced that all of the utilities lllll 13 had appropriate programs for alcohol control, and so you f
14 weren't going to becomefinvolved in'that. -Did I misunder-15 stand?
16 MR. GRIMES:
'I didn't make quite that hard a state-17 ment.
But that is our general thrust that we can leave that 18 to good practice of the industry rather than be specific 19 about how that is handled.
We haven't seen evidence of wide 20 disparity and results for alcohol and it's a somewhat dif-21 ferent question than an illegal substance.
22 CHAIRMAN KERR:
My question was if those are now 23 in existence and are successful, one might get some ideas 24 about how to handle the drug problem from looking at how the 25 alcohol program is now being handled. Have you done that?
Heritage Reporting Corporation m ma
1 I
MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
In the sense that'EEI guides
(-
2
'that are now in place being followed address both drugs and 3
alcohol-in a comparable manner.
The points that we think
...O 4
are not adequately addressed for drugs are a better consis-5 tency and how the results of those things are treated for 6
drugs, since we are specifying--the Commission has asked that 7
we track people who have been dismissed or prohibited access 8
for drug use and so we think between sites there's a larger 9
need to assure comparability.
If we're going to take action 10 against an individual, prohibiting him from unescorted access 11 at one site' and by that action prohibit him from unescorted 12 access at other sites, we think there needs to be fairly g
13-careful comparability between-those.
34 CHAIRMAN'KERR:
This is now being done for alcohol i
15 apparently, becatise Lyou' re; not concernedJ about eit.
16 MR. GRIMES:
We have no specific requirements 17 that alcohol be treated in this'way.
18 CHAIRMAN KERR:
I guess I'm puzzled that you con-19 sider the alcohol program appropriate when it doesn't do the 20 things you want done for drugs.
21 MR. GRIMES:
Well, we think the alcohol program has 22 a different--the alcohol problem is of a somewhat different 23 nature since it's an abuse of a legal substance rather than 24 use or abuse of an illegal substance.
25 CHAIRMAN KERR:
Well, NRC is not a law enforcement l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation 1
I n.n...
19 1
agency primarily.
It's a safety agency primarily.
2 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
And we've tried to 3
be very careful to base our rule on a need to assure relia-4 bility in the work force which performs key safety functions.
5 And that includes assurance that those people are likely to l
6 comply with very stringent procedures and the rules within the 7
facility and not only is the impairment question a problem 8
but the fact that someone is willing to disobey drug laws is 9
also an indication of whether that person might follow rigo-10 rous procedures within the facility in various situations, 11 DR. SHEWMON:
I've turned to page 87 of the handout 12 here and come to "Cut-off level specified for marijuana and llllg 13 benzenquidine or something of that sort."
And what I was 14 looking for was to see if you or the Agency planned to draw 15 any distinction between marijuana and cocaine, for example.
16 I think they are two extremes.
17 MR. GRIMES:
No.
18 DR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
19 MR. BUSH:
I might emphasize that the version you 20 are looking at is the version that we provided the Subcommit-21 tee a couple of weeks ago and it's been quite significantly 22 changed.
23 DR. SHEWMON:
Well, could you tell me what ben--
l 24 is indicative of?
And also how to pronouce it?
l 25 MR. BUSH:
PCP.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation osv as....
20 1
DR. SHEWMON:
That's a cop out.
What's it indica-2 tive of?
Is that what they call "snow dust" or something 3
else?
Is it a drug that is straight, that you take that way 4
on the street?
5 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
6 DR. SHEWMON:
Okay.
7 DR. REMICK:
Going to this point of the cut off--
8 in the draft we saw, you accepted the HHS guidelines in the 9
Federal Register with two exceptions.
And are you now going 10 strictly with the HHS?
11 MR. BUSH:
The current version of the proposed 12 rule does not take any exception as to the HHS rule.
13 DR. REMICK:
Well, that's what I wanted to clarify 14 because the outline you have here isn't clear.
15 DR. LEWIS:
It impairs our ability to study this 16 to not have the current version.
Is there a reason it wasn't 17 ready for the meeting?
18 MR. GRIMES:
It's in process of typing.
39 DR. LEWIS:
I see.
Because we will be talking 20 about things which you will tell us are not current, but 21 then when the current things appear we won't have had a chance l
l to look at them which makes our job a little bit harder.
22 23 MR. GRIMES:
When we scheduled this session with the 24 Subcommittee and the Committee we weren't aware exactly the 25 phase in which the rule would be.
Certainly we would welcome Heritogo Reporting Corporation m....
21 1
at other times during the process-- for example, after the 2
Commission has decided on what the proposed rule it wants out 3
for comment, or after the public comments are in, it would be 4
very useful to have the Committee look at an actual piece of 5
paper.
We have tried to give you a couple of windows on where 6
we are, just because we happen to be briefing you at this I
7 time.
8 DR. LEWIS:
Could I ask a couple of questions about 9
this version and then you can answer by saying "it's not that to way in the current version."
And my friend, Dr. Shewmon, is 11 a faster reader than I am.
I'm no page 82 and he's up to 12 page 87.
But that's the way it is with professors.
lllll 13 On page 82 it defines impairment as diminished on 14 job performance resulting from physical or psychological 15 stresses that may include abuse of alcohol and drugs.
That's 16 a barn door, of course, because that includes broken mar-17 riages, jilted boyfriends and girlfriends, all sorts of things Is that the same way in the current version?
18 l 19 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
20 DR. LEWIS:
That is truly a barn door.
And I just 21 haven't the foggiest notion of how one would enforce a thing d
22 l
like that.
That's just a comment, not a question.
23 MR. GRIMES:
Employee Assistance Programs are set 24 '.
up to deal with a very wide range of employee problems.
And W
l 25 those may be the more frequent problems rather than self i
Heritago Roporting Corporation m u.....
22 I
referral or drug abuse that are handled by the Employee As-2 sistance Programs.
3 DR. LEWIS:
I understand that.
Every industrial 4
organization is concern about this, but they normally don't 5
try to have hide-bound rules, because they are very much an 6
individual matter which requires counseling and judgement and 7 I a rule, even though I guess has been said, NRC is not a law 8
enforcement agency, a rule, as I understand it, has in effect 9
the force of law on the licensee.
10 MR. GRIMES:
We've tried to be very general, just 11 specifying that there shall be a program and there shall be 12 an Employee Assistance Program to deal with these sorts of lllll 13 things without requiring any specifics except in the area of 14 drug abuse.
15 DR. LEWIS:
Okay.
The other thing that sort of 16 came up in the Subcommittee meeting.
On the top of page 82 17 it says, "Drug abuse means any wrong or improper use of drugs 18 and the absence of medical supervision" and that's another 19 barn door because that includes taking more Nuprin than it 20 says on the label, for example, or taking more antihistamines 21 than you really need for your hay fever, and so forth, and l
22 the drug testing that's defined later is mandatory.
Of course
[
l 23 it doesn't deal with that, but the definition does.
And 24 "wrong" is really an extraordinarily culturally loaded word as 25 is "improper."
It's that way in the current version too?
Horitogo Reporting Corporation mn us a..
23 1
MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
I guess we're open to suggestions O
2 there.
But that's as good as we've found so far.
3 DR. LEWIS:
I'm worried about my sausage McMuffin 4
with egg this morning.
5 MR. GRIMES:
You might be impaired.
6 DR. REMICK:
Brian, am I correct that many people 7
presumably would handle the matter that Dr. Lewis was talking 8
about, about an Employer Observation Program.
Now, that's 9
not part of this.
However, your brothers in Research have 10 another thing out on the street and in that it has an Employee 11 Observation Program.
Am I correct in that how they would 12 normally do it, supervisory observation people for apparent g
13 behavior?
l4 MR. GRIMES:
As part of the fitness-for-duty pro-15 gram would normally include training and--
16 DR. REMICK:
Training of supervisors to observe.
17 MR. GRIMES:
And escort.
18 DR. REMICK:
So it is part of the fitness-for-duty, 19 Employee Observation.
Yes.
21 1.
DR. STEINDLER:
I have two questions.
One, the i
22 copy that I have indicates tnat the HHS guidelines are pro-posed in the Federal Register.
Does that imply that they 23 >
I 24 have not been fixed and adopted?
i 25 [
MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
Horitago Roporting Corporation
<mi.a..
j
q 24 l
1 DR. STEINDLER:
Do you have any reason to believe 2
that they are going to be drastically different in the corres-3 ponding CPL guidelines that the EPA uses to certify their 4
laboratories?
5 DR. SHEWMON:
What is CPL?
6 DR. STEINDLER:
Contractor Performance Laboratory.
7 DR. SHEWMON:
Thanks.
8 DR. STEINDLER:
It's a method of standardizing and 9
certifying the capabilities of a laboratory to get the right 10 answer.
EPA has done it very efficiently.
11 MR. GRIMES:
I'm not that familiar with the EPA 12 guidelines.
l 13 Loren, do you know?
14 MR. BUSH:
No.
15 MR. GRIMES:
We don't know the answer to that.
16 DR. STEINDLER:
It seems to me there are some rules-17 if you really simply want to find out whether or not somebody 18 can do an analysis that is legally binding and will stand up 19 in court, that system has already been put in place for many 20 materials.
Perhaps not the ones specifically identified on 21 the cut-off limits, but--
22 MR. GRIMCS:
The HHS guidelines also cover collec-23 tion procedures and chain of custody and things like that.
I DR. STEINDLER:
So does the EPA.
Unfortunately the 24 25 amount of paper you generate this way is much larger than the Heritago Reporting Corporation m u. a
25 I
samples you collect by a factor of a thousand.
2 The other one, however, is more fundamental.
I 3
didn't understand the rationale that said that you are not 4
going to include the alcohol issue because that's a legal 5
substance whereas the drugs are illegal.
Even in response 6
to the point that the NRC is not a law enforcement agency.
7 I have two questions.
One, do you have some idea of the 8
ratio of problems related to alcohol versus problems related 9
to drugs in the industry that you are trying to regulate?
10 MR. GRIMES:
Loren, do you know that?
11 MR. BUSH:
It's statistically four to five times 12 the frequency.
lllll 13 DR. STEIN 0LER:
Which is four or five times--
14 MR. BUSH:
Alcohol.
15 DR. STEINDLER:
So the one that's got the higher 16 frequency is the one that you are not really specifically 17 addressing there.
18 MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
19 DR. STEINDLER:
Doesn't that strike you as perhaps 20 strange or misplaced?
1 21 ~
MR. GRIMES:
Well, we've tried to approach this 22 I from the standpoint of doing _he minimum that we could con-1 23 l
sistent with getting the effect and we think the programs 1
l that have been put in place voluntarily by utilities seem to 24 (Ill>
i
]
be very good programa overall, and we would like, to the 25 l
l Heritogo Reporting Corporation I
(son) ans ass
26 I
extent we can, not to pass additional regulations that are 2
not absolutely required.
3 DR. STEINDLER:
Well, it would seem to me that if 4
alcohol abuse occurred four times more frequent than drug 5
abuse that the program put in place for handling drugs must 6
be even more successful than the one for alcohol.
7 MR. GRIMES:
No, I don't think that's necessarily 8
the case.
9 MR. WARD:
What is that statistic?
The four or 10 five times?
11 MR. BUSH:
As Brian alluded to, we really don't 12 have data to say what the specific nuclear industry experience lllll 13 is, but statistically nationwide, alcohol--incidence of al-14 cohol and alcoholism is four or five times what it is for 15 drugs.
16 MR. WARD:
Evidenced by what?
Visits to emergency 17 wards or--
18 MR. BUSH:
Visits to emergency rooms and medical 19 treatment and things of that nature.
1 20 DR. REMICK:
Brian, to make sure I understand.
21 l The version you now have will require fitness-for-duty pro-22 grams for a broad range of impairments, including impairment 23 for the use of alcohol.
24 MR. GRIMES:
That's right.
25 DR. REMICK:
However, the Commission is not Heritogo Roporting Corporation
<m> ue..s.
27 I
specifying cut-off levels or testing or things like that re-2 lated to alcohol.
3 MR. GRIMES:
That's right.
4 DR. REMICK:
But you would expect every fitness-5 for-duty program at a utility to address alcohol.
]
MR. GRIMES:
Correct.
6 7
l The next point I want to cover is the Employee hs-8 sistance Programc.
One could argue that identifying, requir-4 9
ing identification--
30 CHAIRMAN KERR:
Before you get to that, I just want 11 to make sure I understood the corament you made to Dr. Lewis.
37 This does not, for example, include antihistamines.
Or does I
g4 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
15 CHAIRMAN KERR:
It does?
16 MR. BUSH:
Yes. The intent is that to cover all l
j7 substances that can be abused or used in a manner that could Ig impair ability to perform.
And that would include prescrip-j g9 tion and over-the-counter drugs.
l l
20 CHAIRMAN KERR:
Okay.
So if someone takes anti-21 histamines and that's discovered, he is considered a drug i
1 22 abuser?
l l
MR. BUSH:
Well, not necessarily.
23 CHAIRMAN KEP.R:
It says so.
24 MR. BUSH:
It doesn't specifically address it in a 25 Heritage Roporting Corporation m u...
28 1
rule, but the current practice is to have a provision in the 2
licensee's policy that in essence states that if you are tak-3 ing a prescription or over-the-counter drugs that could affect--
4 and there's usually a warning on the label that it causes 5
drowsiness, for example, that you report it to your super-6 visor, and then they consult with the medical staff and de-7 termine whether or not that person should be placed on other 1
h 8 !
duties during that period of time.
9 DR. SHEWMON:
See, that's a legal drug so the fact 10 that it's debilitating doesn't matter.
11 DR. REMICK: Do you still have in the program that 12 in a certain region of the country there are specific drugs?
lllll 13 For example, in Pennsylvania, sniffing mushrooms or something 14 like that--to have in addition to testing of those five drugs 15 you implement--
16 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
17 DR. REMICK:
That's still in there?
18 MR. GRIMES:
That feature is still in the proposed I
rule.
19
{
20 DR. LEWIS:
In California we eat lotus blossoms.
21 I DR. REMICK:
I couldn't think of one for California b
d 22 ll so I had to use Pennsylvania.
i l
MR. GRIMES:
Employee Assistance Programs.
One 23 24 l
could argue that it would be enough to require a detection W
i 25 and management action on identified drug abuse. However, it Heritogo Reporting Corporation inn.n.a.
29 I
seems to us that if we are going to require a program which 2
impacts employees in this way, we should also provide for 3
some way of assisting -the employee to overcome the problem.
4 So we have a general provision that says there shall be 5
Employee Assistance Programs and a provision to use those 6
programs in determining whether a person should be identified 7
as a problem and removed from activities within--unescorted 8
access within the protected area.
9 CHAIRMAN KERR:
Is this in response to a feeling 10 that this makes general safety at a higher level or just a 11 humanitarian feeling on the part of the Commission that one 12 needs to be conscious of human beings?
13 MR. GRIMES:
Well, there's a little of each element 14 I think, out there is a safety element which is that if you 15 have an Employee Assistance Program that's available and peo-16 ple self refer to it, it will indeed reduce the number of 17 people in the work force who have problems in drug or other 18 areas.
So it seems--qualitatively it seems a positive effect 19 on the work force reliability and there's also a consideration l
l that when we impact a population in this way that we perhaps 20 l
21 l
provide for a--
l 22 CHAIRMAN KERR:
You could make the same statement ltl about che company cafeterias.
I mean that raises the morale 23 i:
24 and keeps people healthy.
Are you going to mandate that each lli company have a fitness-for-duty food program or something?
25 o
Horitogo Roporting Corporation aen u...
30 i
MR. GRIMES:
No.
2 CHAIRMAN KERR:
Continue.
3 DR. STEINDLER:
Is the title of this proposed rule 4
selected with some care?
5 MR. GRIMES:
6 DR. STEINDLER:
Yes.
7 MR. GRIMES:
I'm not sure of the history.
8 Loren, can you--
9 MR. BUSH:
Well, it was borrowed from the title of 10 the policy statement.
But, yes, I guess I could say it was 11 chosen with some care because there was concern about the 12 broad issue of impairment other than drugs.
Drugs happen to llllg 13 be just one of the many causes of impairment.
14 DR. REMICK:
Is it a Navy term or a military term?
15 Fit for duty?
16 MR. BUSH:
Yes.
17 DR. KEMICK:
I see.
I DR. STEINDLER:
I think it is understood in the 18 19 industry what it means.
It could be misinterpreted.
20 i DR. REMICK:
Well, I think that's the point I'm i
21 j making.
22 MR. WARD:
I think it is common.
It's sort of like u
23 "securing a valve."
24 MR. GRIMES:
One feature of the Employee Assistance (III>
g 25 j Program that I'll point out is that they are to be normally o
li ji Horitago Roporting Corporation k
m.>. a..
o
31 I
confidential, but if an employee is identified who could be 2
a hazard to himself or others then that must be identified to 3
the licensee management.
4 Management actions.
The personnel actions that 5
are taken must be based on results of tests that meet the 6
HHS standards.
There are several actions listed there.
The l
7 l
first confirmed positive test, there is both medical and J
l management recertification required to return to the job.
8 l'
9 This would usually be after some rehabilitation program or 10 if it was a minor thing, it might be just a counseling ses-11 sion with the employee.
12 For a second confirmed positive, there would be llllg 13 a mandatory removal for at least three years from the things l
within the scope of this rule.
Primarily unescorted access.
la 4
l 15 I For involvement with drugs within the protected 16 area, and this was discussed some with the Subcommittee--for 17 i
involvement with drugs within the protected area, there would i
18 q be a removal for five years.
The version the Subcommittee h
19 f saw may have had an indefinite time period or some other time period.
I'm not sure.
20 21 DR. REMICK:
I think it had five years, il h
MR. GRIMES:
It had five years?
22 hit 23 ij DR. REMICK:
By possession--
by involvement you 9
I 24 mean possession, use or sale, is that correct?
p 25 H MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
Within the protected area.
- Now, H
o l
Horitogo Roporting Corporation d
cm3 u. un u
32 1
there was some discussion with the Subcommittee on on-site 2
and the undesirability of that.
We have decided at this time 3
to limit our scope to the protected area, but we will put in 4
the discussion of the rule, the supplemental information, 5
that this is n'ot to inhibit utilities from taking whatever I
6 appropriate action they may take for on-site involvement out-7 side the protected area, or knowledge of off-site sale of the 8
drug.
9 DR. STEINDLER:
Do you have some evidence of the 10 fraction of false positive results of the screening tests that 11 you are going to require to be done?
12 MR. GRIMES:
The initial screening test I don't have lllll 13 the--the confirmatory test--and Loren may be able to supple-14 ment this--the confirmacory test is near--very near 100 per-15 cent accurate.
And there will be actions taken only based 16 on a test which meets the confirmatory test standards.
l DR. STEINDLER:
I don't know quite what you mean 17 I
18 l by 100 percent accurate.
Are you saying the falso positives 19 l are very low?
\\
f MR. GRIMES:
Very, very low, 20 d
n 21 DR. STEINDLER:
Are there statistics available from l
II 22 d someplace on that?
O MR. GRIMES:
I don't think we have any particular
[L 23 24 ll statistics, but we have very, very large numbers of people l lllh U
25 0 being tested in programs across the country.
And very small U
i Heritogo Reporting Corporation an, ne a..
33 1
numbers of allegations now of false positives.
2 MR. BUSH:
I think something that needs to be under-3 stood is what do we mean by false positives.
If somebody is 4
taking a prescription drug that happens to have barbituates 5
in it, for example, or is taking cough medicine or something 6
like that and it shows up in the test.
That's not a false 7
positive because the test discovers the substance that a 8
person is taking.
But that's why there is a requirement for 9
a medical review to go back and look at the dietary habits 10 of the person and so forth, and make a conclusion as to 11 whether or not there is a positive test result that requires 12 some kind of action, g
13 DR. SHEWMON:
I would be very surprised if that's 14 l what Dr. Steindler meant by false positive.
l' 15 DR. STEINDLER:
Well, it just seems to me that 16 unless you've got some reasonably decent body of data that l
17 identifies the odds that you are going to drive somebody l
l l
l 18 l inappropriately out of the business for three or five years h
19 l or whatever the time period is, you've got to be very cautious I
20 l about writing down numbers of the kinds we're talking about.
21 MR. GRIMES:
Well, it's a very difficult statistic a
22 h to get, because somebody may allege that they have been 4
h 23 ]
falsely taken off, but do you put them in a statistical base h
I 24 j because they alleged it?
25 h DR. STEINDLER:
I'm not going to solve the problem J
[
Horitogo Roporting Corporation g
< m> u.....
34 I
of how ycu obtain those statistics.
All I'm suggesting is 2
unless there is a reasonably decent body available the chances 3
of this rule being challenged successfully strikes me as--
1 I
4 MR. GRIMES:
We do have provisions for retention 5
of the sample, freezing of the sample, that kind of thing is 6
specified by the HHS guidelines to provide for employee ap-7 peals and retesting of that same sample.
So in addition to 8
the low likelihood of any inaccuracies in the actual test, 9
there are custody problems which we try to take care of by 10 an appeals procedures with a separate part of that sample.
11 DR. STEINDLER:
In putting this rule together, have 12 you had the advice of some medical or biochemical group, folks g
13 who are in the business?
14 MR. GRIMES: Yes.
We're having the discussion re-l 15
- \\
viewed now for technical accuracy by the National Institute l
16 l for Drug Abuse.
And that I expect to get back--we've had 17 some conversations with them.
I expect to get their detailed i
f comments back next week to verify that we're not making any 18 19 outlandish statements.
We are not drug experts.
We have had 20 the literature collated and done the best we could, but we 21 l are getting a final check from some experts.
h 4
22 il DR. REMICK:
I don't think the full Committee has H
li 23 the entire document that the Subcommittee had, but from my 24 perspective, it's one of the better documented NRC proposed 25 l
rules I've seen fro:n the standpoint of providing rationale.
I
(
Horitago Reporting Corporation i
m u.....
35 i
And bibliography--a very extensive bibliography on all these 2
subjects and so forth.
I'm not saying it's correct, but it's 3
certainly more detailed than I have seen in a typical NRC i
proposed rule.
Both analysis, rationale, bibliography.
4 i
l 5
MR. GRIMES:
Moving now to tracking of personnel.
6 The Commission requested us to insert a provision which would 7
allow tracking of personnel who had been discharged or re-8 moved from access at one facility to track them when the next 9
facility would consider allowing access to that person.
10 CHAIRMAN KERR:
Now, is this for any failure to 11 meet fitness-for-duty qualifications or just for drugs?
12 MR. GRIMES:
For drug abuse.
lllll 13 CHAIRMAN KERR:
You certainly know that it is il-14 legal for an employer to do that under the current rules for 15 things other than this.
If I have an employee who has been 16 working on an reactor who turns out to be a real slob, and 17 he goes somewhere else and asks for a recommendation, if I j
I 18 give him a bad recommendation, I can be sued.
And it has 19 occurred in a number of cases.
So you are doing something q
Il 20 0 which may make this practice legal, but it certainly isn't 21 i legal for other abuses which may be in my view much more l
22 l serious in terms of the prospective employee's contribution I
23 to safety.
l 24 j MR. GRIMES:
Let me make two points there.
One is i
25 [
there will be a requirement that this data be released only I
I Heritogo Roporting Corporation l
m.n m.
i
36 1
to people who have a valid need and a release from the in-2 dividual.
In other words, this would be a condition of em-t 1
3 ployment.
The individual will sign the release which will i
4 l allow the employer to check with other facilities for this i
i 5 '
particular thing.
The employees must now also list their 6
previous employment on'their--
7 CHAIRMAN KERR:
I don't think the release relieves 8 l anyone from responsibility.
It simply says that it's okay 9
for somebody else to make comments, but if you make derogatory 10 comments--
11 MR. GRIMES:
The second point I'll make is that the 12 tracking system is inserted at the Commission's request.
The llll 13 Staff may recommend to the Commision that they avoid this la particular part of the regulation.
15 CHAIRMAN KERR:
I personally am not saying it's 16 bad.
I'm simply saying that under the current rules and 17 practices, as I understand them, one sure can't do it for 18 other things.
i l
MR. GRIMES:
That's correct.
Although we finger-19 l 20 i print everyone now and have an FBI check as a condition of l
21 employment.
There are a number of things done.
CHAIRMAN KERR:
I hardly think of a fingerprint 22 ;
I 23 4 as being derogatory, although I suppose it could be.
li i
24 MR. BUSH:
I might inject that probably the best 25 l
defense against suits of that nature is to be factual and Horitage Roporting Corporation aan sis asse b;
37 I
just stick to the facts.
That the person vas terminated and 2
for the reason and just state that on the paperwork that you 3
maintain on the individual--
i i
4 CHAIRL.'sN KERR:
I'm sorry.
But this does not pre-5 clude a cuit.
It may preclude--
6 MR. BUSH:
I know that.
7 CHAIRMAN KERR:
A suit being won, but--
8 MR. BUSH:
We're expecting to have legal challenges 9
on the fitness-for-duty rule.
10 MR. GRIMES:
The other program elements I'll just 11 mention.
There's a requirement for written policy and pro-12 cedures.
There's a requirement for training for supervisors 13 and escorts and employees.
A requirement that contractor 14 programs be in concert with the utility program. Contractors 15 having unescorted access can either participate in the utility 16 program or themselves have a program which meets the same l
standards.
And the utility is responsible for this.
17 18 There's an appeals procedure set forth from a 19 i
collection of information collected.
i 20 (Go to next page.)
21 22 d 23 l; 24 g
25 I i
l l
Horitago Roporting Corporation l
c m;.n....
l-38 There are a number of things we did not include, 2
but which are asking for comments on in the proposed rule-mak-3 ing.
4 He did not include escorted individuals even though 5
they may do fairly sensitive works around a diesel generator, a vendor comes in from a contractor and works on a diesel.
6 7
We're relying on the quality checks and the observa-8 tion of the indivudal to provide adequate protection there.
9 We are not covering those performing engineering 30 work or quality assurance work outside the protected area.
They may design the components,but again we're relying the 11 design reviews and other checks for the confidence in that 12 h
13 area.
We are not specifying any particular frequency of 34 audits of the program or the collection and reporting of pro-15 16 gram performance data, although we would hope that perhaps 17 the industry may pick up in that area.
]g And, as we discussad. we are not at this time includ ing alcohol in any specific requirements although it is under jg the umbrella of general fitness for duty program requirement.
20 21 l
Based on our discussions with the ACRS subcommittee i
22 l we made some clarifications.
We hope we clarified our intent i
23 [
to have an overall fitness for duty program which was not--
1 DR. REMICK:
Is that clarified actually in the 34 llllI
^
rule itself?
25 O
j Horitago Reporting Corporation h
cm3 u. m.
1 39 I
MR. GRIMES:
Yes, it's in the goals.
2 DR. REMICK:
In the goals?
3 MR. GRIMES:
Right.
The goals were changed to 4
specify an overall--or the objectives, I believe they're 5
called, to specify an overall fitness for duty program and then specifically an objective of a drug free workplace 6
(
7 and then the details of the rule only relate to drug abuse.
8 The definition of illegal drugs was provided and 9
again, we may not have reached the optimum here, but I think 10 it refers to non prescribed or legitimate use of controlled 11 substances, is
.7 hat we rc.ean by legal drugs.
12 There is some ambiguity in the rule as to when the lllll 13 initial test must be provided.
It was pointed out by the sub-14 committee that the way it was worded one could have an initial 15 test on entering employment but then not be granted un-escorted 16 access for several years.
I 17 l
We clarified our intent that the intitial test be I
l j
immediately prior to granting of un-escorted access.
18 19 We changed the discussion, as I indicated earlier, I
20 to say that things which we didnot direct.ly address in the o
21 !
rule, such as attempts to introduce drugs on site or things H
l' 22 done within the owner controlled area that were not within the 23 Protected area are not inhibited by the NRC rule.
l 24 We have, since talking to the subcommittee narrowed d
25 h the requirements to limit the alcohol and make it--alcohol k
1 l
Horitago Roporting Corporation l
< m> no m.
Y 40 I
was in in one place on "for cause" before, it's been elimi-2 nated.
3 And, we are still exploring the appropriate testing 4
rates, I guess, is the final point I would make.
5 DR. SHEWMON:
Appropriate testing what?
6 MR. GRIMES:
Appropriate testing rates--the 125 per-7 cent versus a 100 percent versus something else.
8 DR. SHEWMON:
Could you come back to where I was 9
asking questions before.
You cull out marijuana and PCP 10 because it's not on the HHS list, is that it?
11 MR. GRIMES:
No.
Our previous version had 2 excep-12 tions to the HHS list.
One the screening value for HHS for 13 marijuana was 100 ninograms per mililiter whereas the con-lllll firmatory level was 20 and there was some concern that the 10C 14 15 was very high for initial screening.
It was, I understand, 16 intended to allow for such things as passive inhalation and there is some disagreement within the scientific community 17 l
18 !
as to whether that is a valid concern at those levels.
19 i But I think we finally decided that it was better
't 20 l
to be consistent with whatever the federal guidelines were i
Il 21 ]
rather than taking partial exceptions.
22 i DR. SHEWMON:
So now that page will read, cut off h
what was said by HHS for all drugs or something to that effect?
4]
23 l
MR. GRIMES:
Yes. It will be the same.
24 j
W
)
25 DR. LEWIS:
Is that rationale for the HHS cut off I
Heritago Reporting Corporoflon a.23.>.....
i
41 I
levels to detect imp or to detect drug useage at any a
2 level?
3 MR. GRIMES:
I think it's to detect drug use.
I 4
don't think there's any direct impairment that you can identify 5
with the cut off levels that HHS has indicated.
6 MR. WYLIE:
The section--Section 2610 of the 7 j proposed rule covered general performance objectives and I
8 then the next cection under "Program Elements and Procedures,"
9 did that remain pretty much in tact the way you originally 10 wrote it?
11 MR. GRIMES: No.
We have revised that.
We broadened d
the objectives.
Loren, do you have that?
12 4
13 l
MR. BUSH:
I have a current copy.
Do you want me llllh 14 to read the words?
15 t MR. GRIMES:
- Please, i
MR. BUSII: "'Ihe general perfomance cbjectives for the fit l
16 i
17 for duty program shall (a) provide reasonable assurance that 18 nuclear power plant personnel are not under the influence of 19 any substance legal or illegal or mentally or physically im-I L 1 red from any cause which in any way affects their ability f
20 f
to safely and competently perform their duties."
21 22
"(b) Provide reasonable measures for the early detec-0
]
tion of persons who are not fit to perform activities 23 24 g within the scope of this part and (c), have a goal cf achieving 25 a drug free work place and a work place free of tne effects oC H
If l
Heritago Roporting Corporation m.m...
-5 42 I
such substances."
2 DR. LEWIS:
Those are two different criteria.
Drug 3
free and free of the effects.
I am now worried about the con-4 tradiction there.
5 MR. GRIMES:
Right.
6 MR. BUSH:
Yes.
7 DR. LEWIS:
I am now worried about a contradiction d
8 l
there.
)
1 9
l MR. GRIMES:
No.
I think there are two different 10 objectives.
Drug free means not having drugs in the work 11 place.
DR. LEWIS:
Doesn't that imply the other?
12 j
lllll 13 MR. GRIMES:
No.
Off site use by an individual could 14 affect their performance, so that is the reason for the second 15 clause.
16 MR. WYLIE:
So you removed any reference to alcohol?
17 MR. GRIMES:
In that specifically, but it is include d 18 in the general objective of having the fitness for duty progrtm i
19 that will prevent the impairment from any cause--not prevent h
l the impairment, bu* be able to detect it or--
20 n
21 g MR. WYLIE:
That was the general performance objec-
'Ii l
tive he was reading, wasn't it?
cl 22 23 1 MR. GRIMES:
Beg pardon.
24 j{
MR. WYLIE:
Those were the general performance ob-W
!I 25 ll jectives rearranged and rewritten.
d 9
0 Horitogo Roporting Corporoflon m u. a..
b 43 f
MR. GRItiES :
Rearranged to emphasize that there was I
l W
l an umbrella.
2 I
3 MR. WYLIE: Okay.
I mean, you're just including 4
alcohol as part of the drug--
5 hm. GRIMES:
No.
As part of the influence of any 6
substance which would include alcohol.
7 MR. WYLIE:
Okay.
But not specifically culled out?
8 MR. GRIMES:
Right.
9 DR. REMICK:
Any other questions or comments?
I i
10 MR. WYLIE:
Well, what about the next section on 11 what is required of the licensee, did you change that or is 12 that pretty much the same?
llh 13 MR. BUS!!:
Are you talking about 2620, the written I4 l
policy?
f MR. WYLIE:
Yes, the overall--
15 16 MR. GRIMES:
It's essentially the same, I think.
17 MR. WYLIE:
Essentially the same, except that you 18 removed alcohol.
19 MR. GRIMES:
We removed alcohol.
20 MR. WYLIE:
It specifically says he's got to have a 21 program?
22 MR. GRIMES:
Right.
23 DR. REMICK:
Other questions or comments?
24 DR. KERR:
!!y comment is that it sort of seems to ma 25 that any operative pmspess seems to insure that the operator l
Heritage Reporting Corporation j
imi.n
7 44 I
is fit for duty, but it concerns me that we're moving in a 2
direction, this and other places, could become what I would 3
begin to call micro-management.
We're really telling manage-il 4 !!
ment how to manage.
Maybe this is necessary and the people ll 1
5 out there know little about management as this rule would i
l imply, but if that is the case, I really wonder if we should 6
l 7 1 be operating these plants if the people who operate them 8
know so little about how to manage them.
9 l MR. WYLIE:
Well, I don't know, Bill, of course, the utility that I came from, this is so lenient that it's ridicu-10 l
i 11 j lous.
I mean, as far as the requirement and the programs are l
l concerned and what management would do as far as abusers of 12 13 drugs and alcohol are concerned, lllll f
I don't know about other utilities so I.an't g.:
15 speak for them, I can speak for that particular one.
What bothers me about this is that it's written os 16 lenient that if you just went to the words here and abided 17 I
18 by the words, you would have a very poor program, i
!l It's sort of along the lines that if you're going to 19 b
Ii spell it out and you really want something, you ought to say 20
\\
21 l
what you want.
0 22 Q For example, selling drugs on site, anywhere, the 1
"tility I was at would fire them on the spot, you know, but 23 pI i
24 i
this thing doesn't even do that, ilq 25 !
DR. KERR:
Please don't misunderstand me.
I'm not l
Heritogo Reporting Corporation i
m m m.
g
- kh 45 I
suggesting that management shouldn't take these things 2
seriously, it's just that we're in a position now of beginning 3
to gell management, in detail, how to do it.
That's the point i
4 that concerns me.
5 DR. LEWIS:
In fact, I have a question along those 6
lines.
7 on the things that you're now passing on, like t
8 alcohol, which we agreed earlier is the more important prob-9 lem, you're requiring that the licensee have a program in 10 place.
Are you going to review their program and approve it 11 or are you simply going to require that they have a program, i
12 i
however good or bad?
I i
llll 13 MR. GRIMES:
No, we will not review and approve their 14 program.
15 DR. LEWIS:
You will not review it?
16 MR. GRIMES:
Correct.
17 DR. LEWIS:
Any old program on alcohol is okay?
18 MR. GRIMES:
We may, from time to time have some 19 inspection activity in the area and if something is grossly b
20 out of line, we would probably bring that to their attention, i
I!
21 g DR. LEWIS:
Wait a minute.
Grossly out of line 22 d implies that you do have criteria for the effectiveness of h
23 the program?
24 MR. GRIMES: Well, we have the EEI guidelines, for W
l 25 example which provide a general framework for these things.
l
\\
l Heritogo Reporting Corporation l
can.n au
7 46 1
If someone has no pgoram in the area of alcohol, we 2
would certainly bring that to the utilities attention.
3 Let me also differ with one other characterization.
4 You said alcohol was a more important problem.
I think it is 5
probably a more wide spread problem, but I'm not sure I would 6
agree it was a raore important problem in terms of reliability 7 l of the work force.
8 DR. LEWIS:
I don't want to quarrel about the word, 9
"Important," but I am concerned that you can't have it both 10 ways, that is to say you can't say any old program and then 11 say, by the way, we're going to judge whether it's adequate.
12 So, if you're going to review their programs, they l
13 have a right to know against what criteria you're going to 14 review them and if you're not going to review them--obviously 15 it's in their best interests to keep people sober on the job 16 too, that is the point that Dr. Kerr was making, but I 17 really think you can't have it both ways.
You can't reserve 18 to yourself the right to judge the quality of the program l
without telling them the criteria against which you're going 19 i
l to make that judgment.
20 I
21 h MR. GRIMES:
We do that in a large number of areas l
l now where the regulations are very general.
22 l
f DR. LEWIS:
And in each of them would you have this 23 l
24 conversation?
W 25 DR. REMICK: Dave.
l Heritr go Reporting Corporation
< aw.4.
kd 47 MR. WARD:
Insofar as why a rule.
As I understand 1
W 2
it, all of the licensees are now using the EEI program.
MR. GRIMES:
Right.
3 MR. WARD:
What--maybe you're saying--
4 MR. GRIMES:
There are three main drivers for this 5
rule.
6 MR. WARD:
Okat.
7 MR. GRIMES:
One - random testing.
8 9
MR. WARD:
Right.
MR. GRIMES:
And that's done now by about, I think, 10 22 of the 54 utilities.
31 Some are inhibited from random testing by state 12 13 laws, for example, lllll MR. WARD:
Right and a rule would help with that.
g4 MR. GRIMES:
A rule would help with that and--
15 MR. WARD:
All right.
16 MR. GRIMES: --also with decisions or negotiations 17 with the work force representatives.
The second thing is tha; 18 the EEI guidelines have not assured consistency either in the 39 cut of f levels or in the management actions in response to 20 23 these.
Some people might be removed at the first offense.
In most cases, I think there would be a chance for rehabili-22 tation at the first offense.
23.
{
In some cases, they would get a third positive test
!l 24 IIIII k
25 i
before any removal action is taken.
So, there is a spectrum Heritogo Reporting Corporation e m> u. am
If I
48 i
there that we are trying to level.
l DR. KERR:
One is consistency--
2 I
MR. WARD:
Yeah, I was going to ask the same thing, 3
4 but he's got a third reason too.
MR. GRIMES:
The second one was consistency has 5 l 6
two parts: one, the cut off levels and the--
7 MR. WARD:
Okay.
I quess I can see the first g
problem, the lack of random testing seems to be a real, you know,
9 gap in the program.
10 l
But whether or not it's really necessary or useful even to insist on consistency in these more detailed aspects i
12 of the program, I'm really not at all sure, DR. REMICK:
Can I hypothesize one for you, Dave?
g 13 MR. WARD:
Yes. I mean, if you knew what the right i4 requirements were and then insisted that you be consistent 15 i
about it, that's one thing, but, you don't even know, for 16 17 sure, there isn't a strong technical scientific basis for the discrimination levels and for the employee policy levels 18 as far as first offense, second offense and so forth, 39 i'
DR. REMICK:
Suppose I work a utility and I'm a 20 drug user and they have a very lenient policy and by some 21 standard I should have been removed and wasn't and I decide 22 to go to another utility and my record will show that I was 23 il h
li n t removed, so I must be okay, 24 b
25 l They're going to accept me because of the fact that h
ll H
Heritage Reporting Corporation (mm.
W ll 49 1
I was acceptable to this other utility, their standards might 2 :
be higher, so if you have somewhat consistent standards i
i 3 l of evaluating people when you go from one position to another, h you know what you're getting, 4
h 5 0 MR. WARD:
But you'll be found out if you continue h
6 to be an illegal drug user, you'll be found out by the--
t 7
MR. GRIMES:
Hopefully.
8 DR. SHEWMON:
I wonder, could the.iarvard School 9
of Public Health enter his comments?
llI DR. LEWIS:
I wonder--you know, I understand the 10 11 i need for a rule to mandate a random testing program to protect i
12
! the licensees who want to implement such a program and they're I
llllg worried about suits.
That I understand.
13 14.
Have you considered the possibility of a rule which 15 l simply says that and is unemcumbered by all these other l
16
! things that we have talked about?
j 17 ll MR. GRIMES:
- Yes, if Il 18 ]
DR. LEWIS:
Why did you drop the idea?
19 l
MR. GRIMES:
I think we felt it was highly desirable 20 ;f to have the consistency in treatment of the work force.
b i
l 21 Now if, during the comment period, the industry 22 could say we have straightened out these consistency programs--
l 23 problems, perhaps there would be a basis to retrench on those h
24 ? aspects.
d 25 For example if everybody said we are going to adopt U
4 l]
Heritogo Reporting Corporation m us m.
g%
l j
50 i
the lills guidelines, maybe there's less reason to encumber i
2 l our rules with a requirement for HIIS guidelines.
Right now fj people don't have that consistency and we felt it was fairly 3
4 l important to have both the management actions and the basis for l4 5 h the management actions to be consistent in this area, b
o 6 [
DR. LEWIS:
I'm not sure I entirely understand.
!I j
I guess what I was thinking of was a rule which mandates a 7
l 8 h random drug testing program says use the IlliS guidelines or H
9 let NRC establish the cut off points, I don't care.
What is l
{
simply unencumbered by all these other issues of improper and 10 i
11 wrongful use of antihistamines and is unencumbered by the con-12 cern about alcohol, which you have taken out and is unencumber ed I
13 by the difficulty of defining fitness for duty and all these llll) i 14 l
things.
I is Just go for a straight authorization of a random b
16 l drug testing program which would seem to be--at least I could l'
17 understand how one would write such a thing clearly without 0
18 1
running into the kind of flack you've been running into here 19 and which you will also run into during the public comment period.
20 h
21 !!
MR. GRIMES:
You would have to decide that the 22 0 Commission's regulation should not spedc, in general, to the fit-f 23 [
ness for duty then.
L 24 h Right now we don't have any specific standards M
H 25 L there.
Again we have general authority to act if we identify n
b Q
Heritogo Reporting Corporation
{292) 620 4444
\\f 51 I
major problems, but we thought it was best to set forth out f
h I
2 i
expectations.
3 g DR. MOELLER:
It seems to me there are a couple of l
{
points that should be made.
4 one is that this is clearly a generic problem, they' re 5 j h all facing it and it's clearly, in some senses, a new problem, 6
h 7 l I mean it's been here a decade or two, but relative speaking 8
it's new, so my presumption is that a number.of the utilities 1
9 may very well welcome what you are doing.
In other words, l
helping them grapple with this problem, 10 i
. l' 11 Am I correct, are the utilities, in general, happy i
\\
that you're working on this rule or are they hesitant about it?
12 i 13 MR. GRIMES:
Well, I guess we can look back in his-lllll hltory, as far as the 1982 proposals, the utilities were opposed 14 q
h to that.
I think since that time, discussions I have had 15 t
16 with industry representatives would indicate they were now i
17 [
less opposed to something that would specify random testing.
ll because that does address some of the legal obstacles that 18 l
E 19 j some have encountered.
20 l
DR. REMICK:
Any other questions?
O 21 [
MR. GRIMES:
We will hear from the utility industry H
I 22 j during the comment period.
P 23 DR. KERR:
Not again.
Yes.
25 DR. KERR:
There seems to be a feeling that some e
[
Heritogo Reporting Corporotion w m m,
c'b 52 g
consistency is desirable and I can recognize that if I am 2
expected to deal with this, it's nice to have a consistent
{
set of regulations so I compare what's going on with those 3
1 4 p regulations.
l 5 [
But the problem with consistency, unless you absolutely know that you have the right answer is that you 6
7 can be consistently bad.
l MR. GRIMES:
Correct.
g 9
DR. KERR:
And I--well--
J DR. REMICK:
I would like to switch gears.
Do 10 h
gg l
you have another question for Brian?
i MR. WARD:
How about state regulations as the power?
12 i
13 Do you want to go that far?
I g4 MR. GRIMES:
No, h
DR. REMICK:
If you don't have questions of Brian, 15 or Loren, they can sit down.
I suggest that you stay, 16 I would like to switch gears just a little bit and j7 18 point out to you on March 9th, in the Federal Register, there
']
was a proposed policy statement issued by the Commission that l
gg h
[h is entitled, "Nuclear Power Plant Access Authorization Progran 20 l[
Policy Statement."
The rule that we just talked about was
- g h
o h
developed by the NRR for the Commission, 22 c
The one that was issued on March 9th was by the ll 23 L
h Office of Research, if I recall.
34 23 [
I find it somewhat of--by the way, this one was J
F
[
Heritogo Reporting Corporation n
i mm..
it
Ik 53 brought to us by the staff, the fitness for duty, the g
2 access was not, a minor point, perhaps, but it's interest-1 3
I ing because the proposed policy statement or Access Authoriza-
,I bl l
tion Program states that, "The Commission has concluded that 4
I y
it is appropriate for each licensee who operates a nuclear 5
I L
p wer plant to establish an access authorization program to 6
l 7
insure that individuals who require unescorted access to pro-g\\ tected areas or vital areas..."
Now, from NRR's standpoint, 8
i.]!
9 !
"vital areas," are a part of the protected area, but Research l
comes out not and distinguishes between the two.
10 h
11
"...to protected areas or vital areas of the facili-12 ll ties are trustworthy, reliable, emotionally stable, and do not i
13 pose a threat to commit radiological sabotage."
14 All right, so we have a proposed rule to address Nlwhether people are fit to perform their duties and we have l
15 i
16 another which is directed to some of the same things, but 17 against radiological protection.
il 1
18 Now, in the access authorization, going back under j
one section of it says, "The following must be included in their l
19 i
20 l overall program, a program with the objective for assuring i
21 the detection of alcohol and drug abuse and other behavior J
22 h that may evidence a threat to commit radiological sabotage."
b 23 [
and later on in that,
...a training program which reasonably l;
24 Q assures that management supervisory personnel have the aware-h ness and sensitivity to detect and report changes in bahavior
[t 25 Heritogo Reporting Corporation
]
m m m.
11 54 1
to include suspected alcohol and drug abuse which adversely 2
reflects upon the individual's trustworthiness or reliability. "
3 I guess the point I would like to make, I think, I
I 4
from the standpoint of the regulatory process, this has to be 1
5 h extremely confusing to %%e people receiving both of these
}
6 at the same time.
I'm not criticizing NRR here.
I am criti-7 cizing, I guess, the agency on why, almost simultaneously 8
we're putting out both of these for comment, one a policy 9
statement, c.Te a rule,. both of which are addressing some of 1.
10 the same things, incir,4ing chemical testing cnd so forth, 11 So; I want-3e have the subcommittee or the committe e
12 has not reviewed tFd accesa abthorization, but I wanted to make lllll 13 you aware of it ( nd in the propost.4 letter for the committee, 14 I wish to fddress thlt bscause 1 think it just has to be con-15 j fusing to people.
I I
TSO e are dif5crpncec.
One addresses radiological 16 17 sabotage and the other addre.ases inpairment.
Tl.e logical i
18 question is: Why can't th?y be Oosbined?
Ma7y of the elements They have training of supervisors, observation 19 are the same.
20 of personnel, drug testi g alcohol that type. of thing and 21 so, from an agency standoiat. I just can't understand--I under-o l
22 stand there are tvo offices rnd that it's been this w Ay t.he Pl 23 d past 7 or 8 years, that these two things have been working t
1 24 on simultaneously, it seems that qomewhere in the Agency I
dl l
l 25 p there should be a coordinau on.
i 1
h 4
Heritogo Roporting Corp 6rotion m us am l
6 i
{
55 1
DR. MOELLER: As I listen to you, I didn't have as 2
much trouble.
You tell me that the policy statement calls 3 i for a drug testing program.
4 DR. REMICK:
You have it the e in front of you.
5 DR. MOELLER:
Yes.
6 DR. REMICK:
It's on the Federal Register, Page 7538.
7
,l DR. MOELLER: Okay.
l 8
DR. REMICK:
Left hand column.
I was reading (a) l 9
and (c) there, those are the two sections that I was reading 10 from.
11 You notice it says, "The following must be included 4
in the overall program."
12 13 DR. LEWIS:
And it includes alcohol.
34 DR. REMICK:
Yes.
15 DR. MOELLER:
Well and then this rule is simply h
implementing that portion except for alcohol.
16 F
l DR. REMICK:
Fit for duty, 17 t
18 DR. MOELLER:
Yes, the fitness for duty rule is 19 h implementing this--
20 l
DR. KERR:
Dade, if you're goleg to have a pulicy i
q!
statement, you normally don't have a rule to implement the 21 h
!l pclicy stater.sent.
You don't need it.
22 i
23 j I tnink a knowledgeable person, presumably if he ll 23 H had this rule in effect, and he had this drug abuse program h
i y
as part of his duties under the access, he would just 25
}J i
l Heritogo Reporting Corporation p,l an> u.
\\
l 56 j
incorporate that, but I assume that most licensees out there 2
aren't going to be aware, as we are.
We're confused, I'm 3
confused.
I have been confused for 6 or 7 years on this l
j subject.
4 I
5 :
MR. BUSH:
Maybe it might be appropriate if I say a 6
few things.
h DR. KERR:
Please.
7 I
)
MR. BUSH:
The access authorization program had 8
9 it's origins in the 7355 rule which requires the licensees to have security programs at the power reactors and at that g) 33 particular time, there was some debate as to what were the 12 i appropriate measures to cope with the insiders, so the 13 l
Commission, at that time, committed to examining that prob-lllll
.I lem and coming up with a solution.
34 h
'l F
There were many many meetings, in fact, I think 15 i
there were meetings with the ACRS back in the late '70's and 16 4
17 maybe even the early '80's, about those issues and some of 1
l the various proposals.
18 A little over a year ago the staff proposed an g9 i
l access authorization rule and the Commission looked at it 20 d
- \\
21 and then opted to go with a policy statement than to adopt the industry--proposed industry guidelines.
22 23 [
Now, over the years, the fitness for duty issue 24 came to the fore front starting in about 1982.
At that time, M
l 25 l
there was consideration in the staff for doing just exactly i
h Heritogo Reporting Corporation I
m m m.
iq
N 57 I
what you propose, combining the two into one program.
2 It was decided, I believe it was in 1982, that 3 l there were enough differences in the two programs.
4 L The access authorization program was more doing II i
5 !
background checks.
In other words, finding out things of l
[t prior history as opposed to the fitness for duty rule which 6
7 l
Was more trying to focus on the current status of the employee H
8 0 if you would, the employee actually in the work place.
i 9
l So there were a couple of similar features in to that, yes there is a behaviorial observation feature in both programs and that the access authorization program would try 12 to determine whether or not there was a prior history of 13 alcohol or drug abuse rather than the fitness for duty pro-llll) 34 l gram which is focusing on whether which is focusing on 15 whether or not there is a current situation of alcohol or l
16 drug abuse.
i h
DR. REMICK:
I understand the different purposes, 17 a
18 li but it seems to me that somebody, if we had a OA program or li u
39 ll something for the staff and make sure that if you're talking J
d 20 1 about protected areas and another office is talking protected I
il 21 h and vital, are there differences and so forth.
ll 22 Q You know, it seems to me that somebody needs to II 23 j address the relationship, if there is any of these, maybe it il 24 0 can't be one rule or one policy statement.
h h
Now, I must admit in your fitness for duty, you do 25 h
Heritogo Roporting Corprotion 4
an,u au
II I
58 I
mention that there is an access authorization rule out on the 2
street--excuse me, a policy statement out on the street, you g
6 3 i mentioned it.
4L 4 4 But, I would think that licensees getting the two 1
5 h documents are going to have many questions and lots of con-I 6 l fusion.
7 MR. GRIMES: I think the industry has been involved v
h in both these issues very heavily so I don't think there is a 8
9 confusion question and let me also say, there has been coordina-10 0 tion within the staff on these statements.
O h
11 j DR. REMICK:
The authorization role or the policy 12 j!
statemer.
loes not--access authorization does not make g
13 you fit for duty.
H 14 ]
MR. GRIMES:
Right, and it was really only a 1
15 h difference in time track entirely.
The fitness for duty H
16 ]
rule, the Commission asked for in October and the Access li 17 Authorization has been going on for some time.
I H
18 j I agree that as we go down the road we need to h
]
make sure the things are consistent.
They have consciously 19 n
20 0 been kept the way they area for the time being.
L h
21 [
DR. LEWIS:
First I want to subscribe completely 22 [
to what Forest said, you know, this is one agency and I also
/
23 ;
believe that if you issue rules they should have clarity of e
J 24 [
wording so that there is no ambiguity and should not be self M
i 25 contradictory--mutually contradictory.
h y
Heritogo Reporting Corporation
(
m.a
q '&
I 59 1
They certainly should not be self contradictory, 2
they even shouldn't be mutually contradictory and just on a h
3 [
casual reading of the access thing, I can see something.
4 For example, the access thing speaks to employees 5
j being trustworthy, reliable, emotionally stable, boy I would y
U 6 [
have to be in a position to make that determination unless I
.i h
were properly licensed and, in fact, speaking of suspected 7
a nj alcohol and drug abuse, on page 7538, it doesn't say alcohol 8
f 9 [
and drug abuse, it says, "suspected alcohol and drug abuse,"
10 which adversely reflect upon the individual's trustworthi-t
[
ness or reliability. It's not clear to me whether that is a 11 u
12 presumptive conclusion from alcohol and drug abuse or lllll 13 whether it needs to be evaluated in that rule.
That's a 14 conflict.
15 0 The access rule, again on the same page, Item 11, b
16 {
grandfathers the access authorization.
It says, "The utility a
h; may grant unescorted access to people who either hold a pass 17 N
}
18 on the date the security plan is adopted or has been granted h
19 ]
unescorted access authorization within the 365 days prior to b
20 [
the date of the plant approval." and that suggests that some-i!
21 a body is caught in the drug net, but has been granted unes-22 :
corted within the previous 365 days.
It can be granted access
[
23 I under this rule, but not under the other one and I doubt if i
24 anyone is going to take that loophole, but it is there.
g 25 4 MR. GRIMES:
And, of course, this is not the rule, o
Heritogo Roporting Corporation L
c mm..
Y y
ll 60 h
II I f the access authorization policy statement.
2 h DR. LEWIS:
Ah--so the policy disagrees with the il 1
3 /
rule.
Which one prevails in that case?
1 4
MR. GRIMES:
If the rule is passed, I would think the 1
1 5 );
rule would, but I would also think that before the final rule 0
6 j
took pla,:e, we would have a policy statement.
U
- 0 DR. LEWIS:
I'm a purist. I don't think rules 7
8 j should centradict policy statements.
il 9 0 MR. GRIMES:
I agree.
ly l
10 [
DR. LEWIS:
But anyway, there's a need for coordina-h 11
)
tion.
I 12 1 MR. BUS!!:
The words that you're reading are i
F 13 from the proposed industry guidelines, n
14 !
DR. LEWIS:
Yes.
h i;
15 DR. REMICK:
I'm not looking to Loren and Brian d
to defend what the office has done, but they're perfectly 16
[i l
n 17 j welcome to do it.
That's why I asked them to sit down.
18 0 I did want them to be aware of this other thing 19 that has happened.
c 20 [
MR. WYLIE: It could af fect what we want t o put in h
21 the letter.
22 DR. REMICK:
David.
il 23 l MR. WARD:
Loren, I think the distinction you made 24 between the rule and the policy statement is probably correct 25 h in their origins, but in what is written here, they have L
[
Heritage Reporting Corporation a
m u.
61 i
I really become blurred and the particular section that Dr.
Remick read and you pointed out that the policy statement 2
h
[
has origins, practices of the original access, but Section 3
u L
9 of the policy statement, continual behaviorial observation 4
la 5 f program and that seems to me certainly overlaps, you know, 6
completely with the rule on fitness for duty.
7 MR. BUS!!:
Yes, exactly.
h MR. WARD:
I have to agree with Forest that there 8
0
]
really is a problem here that needs to be straightened out 9
b go O comehow.
n
[4 MR. BUSH:
We didn't perceive requiring a 11 f
12 y behaviorial observation program and the two separate docu-
?
lllll 13 ments was a major problem.
That was our perception.
1 h
MR. WARD:
I think it might be for a licensee, 14 H
15 i yes.
- i 16 DR. LEWIS
I need a slight clarification because j
17 h you chastised me for reading from the proposed industry guide-h 18 lines instead of the rule and yet the rule says, quote: "The
+
gg commitment shall include..."
f 20 MR. BUSH:
Policy statement.
J 21 DR. LEWIS:
Policy statement, I'm sorry.
The policy L
22 statement, I really will get it straight eventually. The policy I
23 statement includes the statement that:
The industry commitment 4
will state quote: "All elements of the industry guidelines 25 will be implements in accordance with the policy statement."
Heritogo Reporting Corporation m us.n.
- lh
)
62 I
So, in fact, the guidelines are part of the policy dc W
2 statement.
b 3 j MR. BUSil:
Yes.
0 4
DR. LEWIS:
Okay.
4 l
5 j DR. REMICK:
The other thing, Loren, once again from I
k 6 j a QA standpoint, the policy statement refers to this l
7 continued behaviorial observation program.
n 8
Nciw, if your fitness review, you do have a comparable g
I 9 )
thing but it'anot called that, so unless you sit out there i
I*
h as licensees and read these things cold, you can't imagine 10 n
l d
the confusion.
Now maybe it's--
11 h
1 12 i
DR. KERR:
It seems to me that since we're setting lllll J
up a rule, 13 in order to establish a consistency, the con-
[
sistency must have become a watchword in the commission, 14 yl l
therefore we can assume that eventually these two will be con-15 b
16 sistent.
i+
17 [i DR. LEWIS:
Portunately, we are advisors to the h
a 18 g Commission and they are the people who are supposed to achieve L
o 19 consistency, so we can Simply, instead of beating on you, say 20 0 to the Commission, get your parts together--
g el DR. REMICK:
That's the intent,
[
21 i
22 DR. LEWIS:
And we shall do that.
23 DR. KERR:
Once we have the back drop and I don't c
24 L it's fair to insist that these men are a separate agency.
25 DR. LEWIS:
Oc course not.
U j
Heritogo Re' porting Corporation m.a.
mk' l
63 1
DR. REMICK:
And I said several times, my impres-2 sions, my personal impression that the draft that the sub-3 committee got was above average of the type of proposed rule 4
making packages we get.
i J
5 j It's very long and has got a lot of information and l
I can't tell whether it's right or not, but it gives a lot of 6
h,i background information, a lot of bibliography, if people want 7
8 j to follow up.
9 Mr. Chairman, I guess we have another 40 minutes.
l I have a draft of a letter if you want to a first reading.
10 d
i DR. KERR:
Any further comments or questions?
gg
\\
MR. WYLIE:
Yes, let me ask a question.
12 13 In the proposed rule, you know, it spells out V
g4 management's actions, sactions to be imposed and things like i
j that.
15
!i
]t Suppose what is spelled out here, the licensee 16 17 i
has a program that is more stringent that these requirements I
18 j and under the licensee's program, he takes the actions and
[
19 y sanctions against individuals that abuse his rules, from a I
20 li legal standpoint, the fact that you passed a rule that is less P
stringent, does that then open the licensee up for legal 21 l
d) action from imposing more stringent requirements than the lav 22 7h says?
23 24 MR. BUS!!:
No, it does not, because the rule 25 characterizes our minimum expectations, f
r Heritage Reporting Corporation h
c m m..
u
1
+
64 1
MR. WYLIE:
It didn't say that though.
It says 2
actions and sanctions to be imposed, it didn't say mode, unles s 3 ll you changed the word.
4 DR. KERR:
It seems to me that you can't ever 1
5 have minimum requirements.
You have requirements or you don't 1
6 have requirements.
If they're requirements, they're not i
1 7 0 minimum requirements, they're requirements.
They're not 9
i 8
minimum or maximum.
Nj DR. MOELLER:
You say it 's normal that the utilities 9
I always know they can be tighter than the requirements.
to I
I 11 DR. KERR:
I don't know the answer to the ques-1 12 tion, but I'm saying that to me it doesn't make sense to talk I
h about minimum requirements.
You either have requirements or lllll 13 d
14 you don't.
Ii
[
MR. WYLIE:
Well, for example, let's talk about the 15 0
16 h one that I talked about earlier where it says that the only 0
j time you got to be concerned about somebody selling illegal 17 1
18 4 drugs on site is when they do it within the protected area, h
19 ]
MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
/j MR. WYLIE:
Any utility that I know would fire and 20 21 turn the person over to the authorities if they catch him 22 anywhere on site.
23 i DR. REMICK:
Charlie, our putting r
,ecific 4
24 statement now in the proposed rule that this does not im-25 pede the utilitier from going beyond that, am I correct?
h Heritogo Reporting Corporation
< mm.
Ij
'} D 65 1
MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
h 2
DR. REMICK:
Your training center, if it was off 0
il site, if they wanted to impose us there or their parking 3
b 4 p lot, they could.
They're making that clear.
d 5
DR. KERR:
That's why it's a minimum requirement.
6,
DR. REMICK:
I had a question I was going to ask, t
7 What is the--it came up when you were talking about NRC h
4l l
inspecting.
What is 'the INPO role in the fitness for duty 8
4 9
programs and Will it continue?
)
l They are doing some kind of audits, is that right? -
10 I!
i II l
Is that part of their evaluation?
12 MR. BUSH:
My understanding is that INPO feels there I
g 13 are some few residual problems at a couple of facilities and l
they were going to monitor the actions those utilities were
[!
14 j
taking to correct those particular findings, but after 'that 15 16 h then they were going to--it would not look at the fitness b
h 17 ll for duty as a specific interest but that if something was 0
y was raised from time to time, they might look something, but 18
,1 19 it was kind of a secondary mission.
20 DR. REMICK:
I see, okay.
21 h MR. GRIMES:
The industry does have a group currently 22 working on this problem after the Commission meeting to address i
23 the issues that were raised.
l t
1 24 L DR. REMICK:
But they do not have a position, I 25 I understand h,
Heritogo Reporting Corporoflon i
mr u.
i
94 66 i
MR. BUSH:
As far as I know.
d i
DR. KERR:
Any further questions or comments?
2 i,
I 3 j MR. GRIMES:
One thing, I thing, I think I will e
4 want to look through, once more, on the minimum requirement i
5 question to make sure we're clear on that.
We need to make d
6 n absolutely sure of our intent.
l' 7 I DR. REMICK:
Could you clarify that and let 8
Herman know 'ehat your answer is then?
9 MR. GRIMES:
Yes.
'I 10 l
DR. KERR:
All right, let's go over the letter.
11 [
(Whereupon, at 10:15 a.m.,
this portion of the lhl committee ineeting was concluded. )
12 h
lllh 13 li 14 "
i is [
fi 16 ll 17 h 4
P 18 g H
O 20 h 1
21
- l 22 i; a
23 L J
(Ill'
)
25 n
[
Heritogo Reporting Corporation i
h cm,.a H
r l
1 CERTIFICATE O
2 3
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Name 336th ACRS MEETING 6
7 Docket Number:
8 Place Washington, D. C.
9 Date:
April 7, 1988 8
10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taker. stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate roc rd of the foregoing proceedings.
16
/S/
wn das 17 (Signature typed):
IRWIN I OFFE 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4898
+4