ML20154Q700
| ML20154Q700 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 05/20/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Gejdenson S HOUSE OF REP., INTERIOR & INSULAR AFFAIRS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154Q702 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8806070099 | |
| Download: ML20154Q700 (10) | |
Text
'
3 28C
, f*$
%e DbfL 9
UNITED STATES
/'
,i e
3,
{
,1 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W ASHINGTON, D.C. 206B5 t,
- .s.*
May 20, 1988 CHAIR M AN l
l
\\
The Honorable Sam Gejdenson, Chairman Subcomittee on General Oversight and Investigations i
Comittee on Interior and Insular Affairs i
United States House of Represantatives l
Washington, D. C.
20515 1
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Enclosed are responses to questions contained in your April 30, 1988 letter concerning fitness for duty, backfit, and design basis threat.
Sincerely, de w.
A.
Lando W. Zech
Enclosures:
l As Stated l
i 8806070099 880520 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR
e A.
FITNESS FOR DUTY Q~UESTION 1.
Is it the NRC's intention to issue regulations or other criteria?
ANSWER.
The NRC does intend to issue regulations or, fitness for duty.
The schedule for rulemaking and the nature of the planned requirements are described in the answers to Questions 2 and 3.
9 e
i t
1 i
i I
--.-,.-,__,,-__,.,,_-,.,,,---_,-..n.,
e QUESIION 2.
If so, when will they be issued and will they be in the form of final rulemaking, proposed rulemaking, guidelines or another type of issuance?
ANSWER.
The Commission expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Fitness for Duty within the next several menths.
In accordance with directions from the Commission, the NRC staff is developing such a draft Notice.
Following review and any necessary modifications by the Commission, the proposed regulations will be issued for public comment.
We expect to allow a public comment period of about four months on this important and complex subject.
Following our evaluation of public comments, a final rule will be publisned for implementation.
Recognizing the current ligal issues and uncertainties regarding the drug testing of individuals, the Commission's objective is to issue final fitness for duty regulations during calendar 1989.
9
l QUESTION 3.
In brief, what will the regulation, guideline or other issuance require or otherwise provide for?
ANSWER.
The proposed rulemaking on fitness for duty prepared by the staff includes the following basic provisions:
Licensees would be required to develop and implement programs with the objective.of providing reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant personnel are not uader the influence of any legal or illegal substance, or mental of physical impairment from any cause, which in any way affects their ability to safely and competently perform their duties.
1 The rule would apply to essentially all persons at operating nuclear power plants who are granted unescorted i
access to Protected Areas of the plant and to those who are designated to respond to either onsite or offsite facilities in support of the licensee's Emergency Plans.
The regulations would not apply to unescorted access by-NRC employees covered by NRC's fitness for duty program, nor to law enforcement officials and emergency fire or medical personnel, i
Drug testing would be required prior to the granting of i
unescorted access to the plant, on a "for cause" basis, and on a random, unannounced basis.
Minimum required managr snt actions would be prescribed for those individuals dttermined to have been involved with illegal drugs.
A confirmed positive drug test would result in the removal of unescorted access authorization to the plar t pending rehabilitation or other disposition of the case.
The proposed rules would require that licensee drug testirig programs meet the quality standards recently published by the Department of Health and Human Services
'for drug testing conducted by federal agencies.
Licensees would he required to include the following elements in their fitness for duty programs:
written policy and procedures, employee and supervisory training, employee assistance program, provisions for employee i
appeals, and protection of personal information.
The proposed rulemaking developed by the staff has not yet been reviewed and approved by the Commission.
1
QUESTION 4.
With respect to fitness fo'.
dat'!.... w 11 the NRC follow the recoemendation contained in the Subcommittee report. "Mr.L Cozinese with Industry," issued in December 19077 AN{WER.
The SubcomNittee's Dc embar 1987 report recommends that NRC "promptly oromulget? 3 fitness for duty rule to prevent drug and alcohol acust at nuclear power plants."
As described in the.inswers to Qu;.tions 1, 2. atie 3, NRC is in the process of preparing and p:can' gating a fitness for duty rule.
The der.ision to feitiate rulemaking was made following a December 1, 1987 Ccmmission eeting on fitness for duty.
9 l
1 e
1
?
-,c.
B.
BACKFIT QUERTION 1.
Is it the NRC's intention to issue regulations or other criteria?
ANSWER.
Yes.
It is the Commission's intent to revise the vacated backfit rule to make clear when economic costs are not to be considered in backfitting nuclear plants so that the rule will conform unambiguously to the August 4, 1987 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals.
9 i
l 1
Q~UESTION 2.
If so, when will they be issued and will they be
~-~~
in the form of final rulemaking, proposed rulemaking, guidelines or another type of issuance?
ANSWER.
The criteria will take the form of both a final rulemaking and a revised NRC manual chapter.
A proposed rule was issued on September 10, 1987, 52 FR 34223.
The rulemaking package discussing the NRC staff's evaluation of public comments received on the proposed rule amendment is under consideration for final action by the Commission.
Commissioner's comments are expected shortly and final action may be completed in May 1988.
Following favorable action by the Commission, the final amended rule will be issued expeditiously.
A conforming version of NRC Manual Chapter 0514, which provides more detailed guidance to NRC staff and licensees on procedures for evaluating and implementing plant-specific backfitting, will also be issued following Commission approval of the amended rule.
4 i
v m
QUESTION 3.
In brisf, what will the regulation, guideline or
~~
other issuance require or otherwise provide for?
ANSWER.
The amended rule will incorporate the vacated rule's requirements that, except when adequate protection or compliance with the Commission's requirements is at stake, proposed backfitt must be shown to provide a substantial increase in overall protection to public health and safety at a cost justified by the increase.
The Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the use of cost esnsiderations in these circumstances in UCS v. NRC, 824 F.2d 108 (1987).
However, the amended rule is more explicit about the situations in which cost considerations are not to apply.
The amended rule states explicitly that if a backfit is needed to provide adequate protection to the public health and safety or common defense and security, or if the backfit entails defining or redefining the level of safety which is required for "adequate protection," the Commission shall require l
the needed backfit, and neither the rule's "substantial increase" standard, nor its "costs justified" standard would be applied.
On instruction from the Commission, the NRC staff has also revised NRC Manual Chapter 0514 to ensure consistency with the amended rule.
With these changes, both the amended rule and the revised Manual Chapter will conform unambiguously to the Court of Appeal's decision, j
I e
- - - ~, - -
e
QUESTION 4.
With respect to...backfit, will the NRC follow the recommendations contained in the Subcommittee report, "NRC Coziness with Industry " issued in December 19877 ANSWER.
Af ter careful consideration of these matters, the Commission has concluded that the backfit rule (amended as indicated in the preceding answer) and additional guidance for its implementation in the form of the conforming,1RC Manual Chapter 0514 are the most appropriate and effective means for contiol of backfitting in nuclear power plants and for ensuring the most efficient use of NRC and licensee resources for safety Further, the Commission has recently reviewed the existing guidance governing NRC staff conduct in interactions with industry and licensee representatives, and the staff's awareness and implementation of that guidance.
The Commission believes that no different or additional guidance is needed in this area.
The Commission will continue to give emphasis to the importance of avoiding even the appearance of conflict of interest in the routine conduct of the Agency's regulatory mission.
1 4
e C.
DESIG_N_ BASIS THREAT FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS QUESTION 1.
Is it the NRC's intention to issue regulations or other criteria for revisions to the design basis threat for commercial nuclear power plants?
ANSWER The Commission does not believe a change to the design basis threat for radiological sabotage of nuclear power plants is warranted at this time.
This position is based on consideration of a broad range of facts and on analysis of information from the intelligence community which indicates there has not been any significant change in the domestic threat environment since the design basis threat was published.
The NRC staff maintains continuing liaison with members of the intelligence community and Federal law enforcement agencies to monitor both foreign and domestic threat-related incidents and activities.
Any indications of a significant change could result in appropriate revisions to the design basis threat statement, to related regulations, and in the development of associated guidance.
Although there is currently no known credible threat, as a matter of prudence, the staff is responding to Commission 3
direction to develop a range of options which could be taken to counteract a possible surface vehicle threat.
These options will be under Commission review in the very near future.
0 l
,