ML20202C714
| ML20202C714 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/18/1986 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20202C707 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8607110373 | |
| Download: ML20202C714 (13) | |
Text
4/18/86 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN COMMISSION POLICY STATEMENT ON FITNESS FOR DUTY OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANT PERSONNEL AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission ACTION: Final Commission Policy Statement on Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel
SUMMARY
- This statement presents the policy of the Nuclear Regu.latory Commission (NRC) with respect to fitness for duty and describes the activities that the NRC will use to execute its responsibilities to ensure the health and safety of the public. To provide reasonable assurance that all nuclear power plant personnel with access to vital areas at operating plants are fit for duty, licensees and applicants are developing and implementing fitness for duty programs using guidance 2
in the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) "EZI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty Policy Development." It remains the continuing responsibility of the NRC to independently evaluate applicant development and licensee implementation of fitness for duty programs to ensure that desired results are achieved. Nothing in this Policy Statement limits NRC's authority or responsibility to follow up on operational events or its enforcement authority when regulatory requirements are not met. However, while evaluating the effectiveness 8607110373 860630 PDR COMMS NRCC COT,RESPONDENCE PDR
of this guidance, the NRC intends to exercise discretion in enforcement matters related to fitness for duty programs for nuclear power plant personnel and ref, rain from new rulemak ng in this area for a period of at least eighteen months from the effective date of t.5is Policy Statement.
EFFECTIVE DATE: (Upon publication in the Federal Register)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loren Bush, Operating Reactor Programs Branch, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555, telephone (301) 492-8080.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BACKGROUND The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) recognizes drug and alcohol abuse problems to be a social, medical, and safety problem affecting every segment of our society. Given the pervasiveness of the problem it must be recognized that it exists to some extent in the nuclear industry. Prudence, therefore, requires that the Commission censider additional appropriate measures to provide reasonable assurance that a person who is under the influence of alcohol or any substance legal or illegal which affects his ability to perform his
_3 duties safely, is not allowed access to a vital area at a nuclear power plant.
The nuclear power industry, with assistance from programs developed and coordinated by EEI and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO)', has made and is continuing to make substantial progress in this area.
A Task Force on Drug Abuse Problems, Policies, and Programs established in 1982 by EEI's Industrial Relations Division Executive Advisory Committee, published guidelines in 1983 to help the industry address the issue of how to establish,
- comprehensive fitness for duty programs. They were subsequently revised in 1985 as the "EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol /
Fitness for Duty Policy Development" and were provided to all nuclear utilities.
l A series of EEI sponsored regional conferences.in the fitness l
- cr duty area in 1982 and 1983 provided a forum for discussion of industry concerns related to development and implementation of fitness for duty programs. Topics addressed at the conferences included union participation, legal aspects, training, and methods for handling controlled substances. An industrywide conference sponsored by EEI in October 1985 provided the basis for additional discussions on fitness for duty based l on the current EE! guidelines which had been expanded to l
include information on chemical testing. As a result of
increased awareness in this area, the nuclear industry has worked to develop and implement improved fitness for duty programs. These programs concentrate on the training of
=anagers, supervisors, and others in methods for identifying and dealing with personnel potentially unfit for duty.
On August 5, 1982, the Commission published in the Federal Register a proposed rule on fitness for. duty (47 FR 33980).
The proposed rule would have required licensees to establish and implement written procedures for ensuring that personnel in a nuclear power plant are fit for duty. Due to the initiatives taken by the nuclear in,dustry, the Commission has decided to defer implementation of the rule subject to successful implementation of fitness for duty programs by the industry as described in this Policy Statement. NRC is publishing a separate notice in the Federal Register analyzing the comments on the proposed rule, and explaining its intent to reassess the possible need for rulemaking after an 18-month period, if circumstances warrant. The following statement sets forth the Commission's policy on fitness for duty and describes i
how it will execute its responsibilities in this area to I
! ensure the health and safety of the public.
i POLICY STATEMENT The Commission recognizes that the industry, through the initiatives of the Nuclear Utility Management and Resources
=}. O Committee (NUMARC), EEI, and INPO, has made progress in developing and implementing nuclear utility employee fitness for duty programs. The Cc= mission stresses the importance of infustry's initiative and wishes to encourage further such self-improvement.
Subject to the continued success of industry's programs and NRC's ability to monitor the effectiveness of those programs, the Commission will refrain from new rulemaking on fitness for duty for a minimum of 18 months from the effective date of this' Policy Statement. The Commission's decision to defer implementation of rulemaking in this area is in recognition of industry efforts to date and the intent of the industry to utilize the EEI Guidelines in deve'.oping fitness for duty programs. The Commission will exercise this deference as long as the industry programs produce the desired results.
However, the Commission continues to be responsible for evaluating
, licensees' efforts in the fitness for duty area to verify.
effectiveness of the industry programs. The Commission will reassess the possible need for further NRC action based on the success of those programs during the 18-month' period.
At the Commission's request, the industry agreed to undertake a review of the program elements and acceptance criteria s
for a fitness for duty program. EEI modified and issued the revised "EEI Guide to Effectiv6 Orug and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty Policy Development." Further, INPO enhanced its performance objectives and criteria for its periodic
evaluations to include appropriate criteria for fitness for duty. Copies of the documents describing the program elements and criteria for fitness fer duty programs developed by the industry are provided to NRC for review and comment.
The NRC will evaluate the effectiveness of utility fitness for duty programs by its normal review of industry activities, through reviews of INPO program status and evaluation reports, periodic NRC observation of INPO evaluations, and direct inspections conducted by the NRC's Performance Appraisal Teams, Regional Office, and Resident Inspectors. NRC will also monitor the progress of individual licensee programs.
By way of further guidance to licensees, Commission expectations of licensee programs for fitness for duty of nuclear power plant personnel may be summarized as follows:
o It is Commission policy that the sale, use, or possession of illegal drugs or alcohol within protected areas at nuclear plant sites is unacceptable.
! o It is Commission policy that perrans within protected areas at nuclear power plant sites shall not be under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, which adversely affects their ability
, to perform their duties in any way related to safety.
1
o An acceptable fitness for duty program should at a minimum include the following essential elements:
- 1) A provision that the sale, use, or possession of illegal drugs within the protected are'a will result in immediate revocation of access to vital areas and discharge from nuclear power plant activities.
The use of alcohol or abuse of legal drugs within the protected area will result in immediate revocation of access to vital areas and possible discharge from nuclear power plant activities.
- 2) A provision that any other sale, possession, or use of illegal drugs will result in immediate revocation of access to vital areas, mandatory rehabilitation prior to reinstatement of access, and possible discharge from nuclear power plant activities.
- 3) Effective monitoring and testing procedures 2
to provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant personnel with access to vital areas are fit for duty.
~8~
The industry, by periodic briefings or other appropriate methods, is expected to keep the Commission informed on program status. The NRC may also from time to time ask individual licensees to provide such information as the Commission may need to assess program adequacy.
ENFORCEMENT Violations of any applicable reporting requirement or instances of a person being unfit for duty such that plant safety is potentially affected will be subject to the enforcement process.
Any NRC staff enforcement action pertaining to fitness for duty during this grace period will be undertaken only with-Commission concurrence.
In addition to required reports and inspections, information requests under 10 CFR 50.54(f) may be made and enforcement meetings held to ensure understanding of corrective actions.
Orders may be issued where necessary to achieve corrective actions on matters affecting plant safety.
In brief, the NRC's decision to use discretion in enforcement in order to recognize industry initiatives in no way changes the NRC's ability to issue orders, call enforcement meetings, or suspend licensees should a significant safety problem be found.
s Nothing in this Policy Statement shall 1imit the authority of the NRC to conduct inspections as deemed necessary to take apprcpriate enge.-...,. ------ 3,;0n wh=-=
-- ev"-ta --a-/ require =en:3 are not met.
O O
i e
i l
l l
I I
l l
Comissioner Asselstine's 3eparate Views on Fitness for Duty Policy Statement This policy statement is a step in the right direction. Human error is a dominant factor in the risk associated with the operation of nuclear power plants. An adequate fitness for duty program is essential to reduce the chance that human error will be caused by utility personnel performing safety-related work in a drug or alcohol impaired state. This policy statement puts the Commission on record as endorsing the concept of a drug and alcohol free workplace at plant sites, and that is useful. The statement also gives some guidance on what the Commission expects of licensee fitness for duty programs. However, I believe that the Commission should have gone further.
Instead of merely issuing a policy statement, the Commission should have promulgated a rule. The rule should be a relatively simple, nonprescrip-tive rule which wouir do two things. First, it would prohibit anyone who is unfit for duty from being permitted access to vital areas of plants.
Second, it would require licensees to have a program and procedures to ensure that no one who is unfit for duty gains access to vital areas. The Commission should then work with the industry to develop guidance on what are the essential elements of an adequate fitness for duty program. There are several reasons why I believe that this would be a better approach.
The most important reason for my preference for a rule and specific guidelines is that a rule is enforceable while a policy statement is not.
_2_
With a rule the Comission would have a clear basis for enforcement action in all cases in which a utility fails to establish and maintain an effective fitness for duty program. The NRC has broad authority under the Atomic Energy Act to take enforcement action by issuing an order should there be an immediate threat,,
to public health and safety. The Commission would also be able to take enforcement action if it could tie a specific safety problem to a lapse in the licensee's fitness for duty program.
However, the Commission is unlikely to be able to do so. For example, if a maintenance worker makes a mistake in assembling safety equipment because he is under the influence of drugs or alcohol and equipment later malfunc-tions, it is unlikely that the true cause of the mistake would be discovered. In fact, the problem would most likely be attributed to some defect in the worker's training. Further, waiting until a specific safety problem surfaces or an immediate threat occurs and then trying to correct the fitness for duty program after the fact is not the best way to ensure that licensees have effective fitness for duty programs. Thus, our general enforcement authority does not provide us with enough flexibility to deal with all potential fitness for duty problems in a timely manner. Absent a specific event, it would not allow us to do much of anything if a licensee simply has not developed or implemented an adequate program. This policy statement represents a continuation of the reactive approach to regulation which'has so often failed in the past.
A second reason for my preference for a rule with minimum guidelines is that the policy statement is too amorphous. Even the " specific" guidance the Commission does provide is fairly vague. The policy statement provid's
. )
}
l
. \
little insight into what the Commission considers to be an adequate fitness for duty program or what standard the staff is supposed to use as it monitors the progress of the industry over the next eighteen months.
The Commission should wark together with the industry to identify the essential elements of an adequate fitness for duty program. While the policy statement comments favorably upon the EEI guidelines developed by the industry, those guidelines are optional, not mandatory. The utilities can, therefore, pick and choose among the various elements and decide whether to include them in their programs. Moreover, the EEI guidelines themselves are quite general in nature, and are subject to varying interpretations. Absent further guidance on what is an acceptable fitness for duty program, the utilities can and probably will adopt widely differing approaches on such elements as chemical testing and offsite drug use. Not all approaches are likely to be acceptable. The Commission should not wait until 18 months from now, when all the utilities are supposed to have their programs in place, to let the industry know whether the Commission agrees with what they have done. The Commission and the the industry ought to decide now which elements are absolutely essential to an adequate program, and then everyone will be working from a common base of understanding.
The Commission and the industry should also establish the specific criteria against which individual licensee programs will be evaluated so that the ground rules for evaluating programs and for monitoring progress will be in place before the 18 month monitoring period begins. Absent such
l . .
~
guidelines, it is difficult to see how INP0 and NRC staff reviews of these programs will provide any meaningful insights as to their adequacy.
Thus, to ensure enforceability, to set the ground rules in advance and to ensure that all utilities me.et at least a minimum set of standards, I believe the Commission should issue a rule and should establish guidance, in cooperation with the industry, on just exactly what are the essential elements of a fitness for duty program.
b a
The Honorable Paula Hawkins DISTRIBUTION:
CS C PDR D Reading ORP Reading Chai n Palladino Commis oner Roberts Commissi er Asselstine Commissio r Bernthal Commissione Zech VStello JRoe TRehm JSniezek HRDenton GCunningham PNorry RMinogue JMTaylor RHVollmer JGPartlow RLSpessard PFMcKee JCunningham LBush DMorris(ED0-001734)
MLReardon DDTS #86-278 OCA(3)
SECY (86 466) 0FC :IE:0RPB :IE:0RPB :IE:0RPB :IE:D/DIR:DI :IE:DIR/DI :IE:D/DIR :IE:DIR NAME :LBush: esp :JCunningham :PFMcKee :RLSpessard :JGPartlow :RHVollmer :JMTaylor DATE :5/ /86 :5/21/86 :5/21/86 :5/21/86 :5/ /86 :5/21/86 :5/21/86 7
0FC :ED :0CM :0CA : : : :
_____: ...:____________:____________:g -
NAME : :NPalladino : :U : : :
DATE:5/5E'85 / :5/ /86 :5/ /86 : : : :
/