ML20205T396
| ML20205T396 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 11/04/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Sharp P HOUSE OF REP., ENERGY & COMMERCE |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR36795, FRN-54FR24468, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-26 AC81-2-039, AC81-2-39, CCS, NUDOCS 8811140247 | |
| Download: ML20205T396 (1) | |
Text
k
(
[
~
UNITED STATES p'
' 't NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pyb g
i NASHINGTON, D. C. 20m k.....,o November 4, 1988 CHAIRMAN -
The Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives Washington, D.C.
20515
Dear Hr. Chairman:
I am responding to your October 14, 1988 letter on the Commission's proposed fitness-for-duty rule.
The Commission agrees with you on the importance of ensuring that nuclear power plants are operated by individuals who are not impaired by drugs or alcohol and believes that the NRC fitness-for-duty rule will be a significant step toward that goal.
Your specific comments on the proposed rule, along with all others received during the public comment period, will be considered in our development of the final text of the rule.
Sincerely, W.
k Lando W. Ze
,Jr cc:
Rep. Ca alos J. Moorhead I
/09 r
?$i'ig:47 CORRESP$$hg(ees soa RjC
\\
~
.wm...
J.....T,. u
~ ""0"#,U%" '
i "Pr,1=','
=:/, =;'m%%.
ll' "'r fla" "'.". '*O'd' ";;'o o 1H.6. house of Representatibeg
'L*f,",'O'iM;* *" ss"'haf.a' *#
commince on enern ann commerce s
%"a =,.u "..'
0'"la'a.u....
vUn',!.Es's Ta' LIE 7 *
- SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
- 1,*it'iff:'.
"','JWi"E".l.c'ET MasfJington, DC 20515 o
.in w.m October 14, 1988 The Honorable Lando W.
Zech, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
I am pleased to see that the Commission has finally published its proposed rule relating to fitness for duty at nuclear power plants (Federal Register, September 22, 1988).
I strongly urgo its adoption upon the completion of the comment period.
If there were ever a place where there must be zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol, it is at a nuclear power plant.
Americans have a right to expect that all necessary precautions are being taken to insure that nuclear power plants are operated by individuals who are not impaired by drugs.
Drugs and chain reactions do not mix.
The Commission has in the past seemed so willing to avoid this important issue.
Your first proposed rule was published on August 5, 1982.
It was subsequently withdrawn following claims by the industry that it should be allowed to regulate itself.
As your current proposed rule notes, that has proved ineffective.
On March 22, 1988 I wrote to you to urge that the Commission adopt a fitness for duty rule, and I am pleased that the commission is finally taking action on the mattor.
Government regulators and industry offir als must all be completely committed to ensuring a drug-free workplace at nuclear power plants.
If the Commiselon fails to act in the strongest possible manner, I am prepared to introduce legislation that will accomplish the same effect.
For too long the Commission has appeared to look the other way on drugs at nuclear power plants, not because you don't sharo my views on the importar.ce of fitness for duty, but because the Commission has frowned on the use of regulation.
After six long years, this is your last opportunity to act.
If the Commission can't say no to drugs at nuclear power plants, I will make sure that Congress does.
D VI//rn 2itn ou--yyyvp Aff' a
e I would like to make several specific comments on the proposed rule.
While the proposal is a good start, it does not go far enough.
It is particularly important that the following matters, which are not included in the proposed rule, be properly addressed:
Construction:
The rule does not address fitness for duty requirements for contractors during the construction of a nuclear power plant.
During the past Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power (our predecessor subcommittee) conducted an investigation of drug use at the Seabrook plant.
Company records disclosed hundreds of incidents of drugs and alcohol found in sensitive areas of the plant.
In addition, many confidential informants provided information of widespread drug use and sales of drugs.
In fact, on one occasion nearly $10,000 worth of cocaine was discovered right at the plant.
It was particularly disconcerting to learn from informants that quality assurance inspectors were among those using drugs.
A drug-free workplace is important during the construction of a nuclear power plant as as it is during the operation, and your rules must addcass this issue.
Record keeping / Reporting:
The proposed rule fails to provide for clear records of all incidents of drugs and alcohol at the workplace, along with timely reports to the Commission.
During the investigation of drugs at Seabrook, the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power discovered that records were extremely hard to locate.
In fact, the incident involving the discovery of
$10,000 worth of cocaine was not disclosed to the Subcommittee during the investigation because somehow the records were missing.
It is also important that the Commission receive complete and timely reporting of incidents.
The Subcommittee discovered that in the case of Seabrook, the Commission was totally uninformed about the hundreds of incidents drug and alcohol abuse.
The Commission was not even made aware of the $10,000 cocaine incident until months later.
Nor was the Commission aware that one Seabrook construction worker litorally drank himself to death on the promisos of the plant.
Your response to my March letter indicated a serious lack of knowledge about the extent of incidents at nuclear power plants.
Too often utilities prefer to sweep incidents under the rug.
Unless the commission requires complete records and reports to the commission, you will have no way to enforco your regulations.
Enforcement:
The proposed rule notes that violations of the regulations could be subject to fines or imprisonment.
- However, it would be useful for the commission to clearly express its intent to fully enforce the provisions, and to ensure that utilities are carrying out their responsibilities.
In the caso of an incident of alleged alcohol abuse by a senior manager at the Davis-Bosso power plant, the Commission essentially lot the utility investigato itself and never followed through until further allegations wore made.
The Commission must work hard to reverse this image, and make clear its intent to strictly enforco the regulations.
Alcohol:
There is no logic behind a fitness for duty policy that focuses only on illegal substances, and not on legal substances which may impair judgment, particularly alconol.
The rationale behind the regulations is to ensure that nuclear workors are not impaired, and alcohol can result in impairment that is similar to that resulting from drugs, The incidents at Davis-Bosse and Seabrook, discussed above, show the importanen of including alcohol in the fitness for duty regulations.
Singer ly, l
/
f
>/' Sheirm 'n1,,!.& ['
rp
/
/
/
v
/
/
./
/
-i-Distribution:
VStello JTaylor
/
JBIaha RErickson
~
UNITED STATES WRussell MMCAllister 8*I'
^
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
3 0
{
i W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 a
November 4, 1988 e
OMossburg CHAIRMAN DRIS r/f LBush BGrimes PDR 0GC l
BHayes Ine Honorable Philip R. Sharp, Chairman BDavis Subcommittee on Energy and Power JLieberman Coumittee on Energy and Commerce JSniezek U.S. House of Representatives DCrutchfield Washington, D.C.
20515 EDO 4019 RSGB r/f
Dear Hr. Chairman:
I am responding to your October 14, 1988 letter on the Commission's proposed fitness-for-duty rule.
The Commission agrees with you on the importance of ensuring that nuclear power plants are operated by individuals who are not impaired by drugs i
or alcohol and believes that the NRC fitness-for-duty rule will be a significant step toward that goal.
Your specific comments on the proposed rule, along with all others received curing the sublic comment period, will be considered in our development of t1e final text of the rule.
l Sincerely, ku us.
t.
Lando W. Ze
,Jr cc:
Rep. Carlos J. Moorhead l
I Originated: NRR:McPeek ph an;Y90-0 k W t (
at q<d I ' 'h v i 'P
y 4
,(, 9 nroq\\
UNITED STATES f
- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
35-S f-wAsHWGTON, D. C. 20656 EDO Principal Correspondence'Contro!
FROM:
DUE: 10/26/88 EDO CONTROL: 0004019 DOC DT: 10/14/88 FINAL REPLY:
REP. PHILIP R. SHARP TO CHAIRMAN ZECH
'FOR SIGNATURE OF:
ROUTING:
COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULE ON FITNESS FOR DUTY STELLO TAYLOR DATE: 10/17/88 HOYLE HAYES, OI ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
RUSSELL. RI I
NRR MURLEY DAVIS, RI!!
" SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
L ER
, OE
^
NRR RECEIVED: OC'MBER 17, 1988%
ACTION:
DRIS
/
}
tRJRLEY/SNIEZEK l
11IRAGLIA r
CRUTCHFIELD l
2 GILLESPIE j
l FD3SBURG i
L i
ACTION DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OMCE I
BY[~2G&.2LRL)177
[
..__--___-__------------w,
s e ~
.~ co.-..
ov
.a.
n.
~...
..m c_..
!*f.L"2"'.". "JJ'"' fd'./ C'.".."n lL'..
E 'tu' T A" "',.... :'J'fd'!' "bo E.6. 3lpouse of Representatibts
%'.!N'UITi,!"""
IO U'.E.7."fe/A'le*o' Committte on dnergp ann (emmerce 1" A!"::'.' P' 02<L"l'L..
//
'Yo'.",'ci"****
suscoMMITTEE ON ENERGY APQ,3GWfK g_
v<
y'g'"g* 'a"Jl%O Mashington DC 20515
^
October 14, 1988 The Honorable Lando W.
Zach, Jr.
Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555
Dear chairman Zech:
~
I am pleased to see that the Commission has finally published its proposed rule relating to fitness for duty at nuclear power plants (Federal Register, September 22, 1988).
I strongly urge its adoption upon the completion of the comment period.
If there were ever a place where there must be zero tolerance for drugs and alcohol, it is at a nuclear power plant.
Americans have a right to expect that all necessary precautions are being taken to insure that nuclear power plants are operated by individuals who are not impaired by drugs.
Drugs and chain t
reactions do not mix.
The Commission has in the past seemed so willing to avoid this important issue.
Your first proposed rule was published on August 5, 1982.
It was subsequently withdrawn following claims by the industry tnist it should be allowed to regulate itself.
As your current proposed rule notes, that has proved inetfactive.
4
]
On March 22, 1988 I wrote to you to urge that the Commission adopt a fitness for duty rule, and I am pleased that the 4
l Commission is finally taking action on the matter.
Government regulators and industry officials must all be completely committed to ensuring a drug-free workplace at nuclear power plants.
If the Commission f ails to act in the strongest possible manner, I am prepared to introduce legislation that will accomplish the same effect.
For too long the Commission has appeared to look the other way on drugs at nuclear power plants, not because you don't share 3
my views on the importance of fitness for duty, but because the l
g Commission has frowned on the use of regulation.
After six long l
years, this is your last opportunity to act.
If the Commission i
can't say no to drugs at nuclear power plants, I will make sure io that Congress does.
n 10/17..To EDO to Prepare Response for Signature of Chairman and Commission Review...Date due Commt Oct 28...Cpys to RF. Cmrs e,,,/,
DSB. OGC, OCA to Ack.. 88-0925 i
Y Y ~~
y.>
I would like to make several specific comments on the proposed rule.
While the proposal is a good start, it does not go far enough.
It is particularly important that the following matters, which are not included in the proposed rule, be properly addressed:
Construction:
The rule does not address fitness for duty requirements for contractors during the construction of a nuclear power plant.
During the past Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power (our predecessor subcommittee) conducted an investigation of drug use at the Seabrook pla.nt.
Company records disclosed hundreds of incidents of drugs and t.lcohol found in sensitive areas of the plant.
In addition, many confidential informants provided information of widespread drug use and sales of drugs.
In fact, on one occasion nearly $10,000 worth of cocaine was discovered right at the plant.
It was particularly disconcerting to learn from informants that quality assurance inspectors were among those using drugs.
A drug-free workplace is 4
important during the construction of a nuclear power plant as as it is during the operation, and your rules must address this issue.
1 Record keeping / Reporting:
The proposed rule fails to provide 1
for clear records of all incidents of drugs and alcohol at the workplace, along with timely reports to the Commission.
During 4
l the investigation of drugs at Seabrook, the Subcommittee on Energy i
Conservation and Power discovered that records were extremely hard to locate.
In fact, the incident involving the discovery of
$10,000 worth of cocaine was not disclosed to the Subcommittee during the investigation because somehow the records were missing.
It is also important that the Commission receive complete and timely reporting of incidents.
The Subcommittee discovered that in the case of Seabrook, the Commission was totally uninformed about the hundreds of incidents drug and alcohol abuse.
The Commission was not even made aware of the $10,000 cocaine incident until months later.
tior was the Commission aware that one Seabrook construction worker literally drank himself to death on j
the promises of the plant.
Your response to my March letter indicated a serious lack of knowledge about the extent of incidents at nuclear power plants.
Too otton utilities prefer to sweep incidents under the rug.
Unless the Commission requires completo records and reports to the commission, you will have ne way to enforce your regulations.
l l
Enforcement:
The proposed rule notas that violations of the regulations could be subject to fines or imprisonment.
- However, it would be useful for the Commission to clearly express its intent to fully enforce the provisions, and to ensure that j
utilities are carrying out their responsibilition.
In the case of
)
an incident of alleged alcohol abuse by a senior manager at the Davis-Besse power plant, the Commission ossentially let the utility investigato itself and never followed through until further allegations were mado.
The commission must work hard to reverse this imago, and make clear its intent to strictly enforco the regulations.
s,'
4
=
s s.
A1cohol:
There is no logic behind a fitness for duty policy that focuses only on illegal substances, and not on 1egal substances which may impair judgment, particularly alcohol.
The rationale behind the regulations is to ensure that nuclear workers are not impaired, and a1cohol can result in impairment that is similar to that resu1 ting from drugs.
The incidents at Davis-Besse and Seabrook, discussed above, show the importance of including alcohol in the fitness for duty regulations.
Sincer ly,
'/
f
/
Id+V 1
Chairma'n
/
/
/
.. -.