ML20245B287
| ML20245B287 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/30/1986 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20245B290 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-88-490 NUDOCS 8706040184 | |
| Download: ML20245B287 (14) | |
Text
- -
m O O i
., _ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION Comission Policy Statement On Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel ;
1 i
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION: Policy Statement.
SUMARY: This statement presents the policy of the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRCl with respect to fitness for duty of nuclear power plant !
personnel 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 of the Edison Electric Institute's (EEI's) "iEl Guide,to_ EffecHse4rugend '
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 a,uthority or responsibility to follow up on operational events or its ;
enforcement authority when regulatory requirements are not met. However, while evaluating the effectiveness of this guidance, the NRC intends to exercise discretion in enforcement matters related to fitness for duty programs for nuclear power plant personnel and refrain from new rulemaling'am4157aree
, for a period of at least 18 months from the effective _dat9Af ttbithlig l
l -
m Ii Statement. The Commission invites interested members of the public to provide
~e comments on this policy statement.
DATES: Effective Date: August 4, 1986- ,
Submit coments by November 3, 1986 ,
ADDRESSES: Coments should be sent to: Secretary of the Comission, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555. ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch. Hand deliver coments to: Room 1121 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC between 8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loren Bush, Operating Reactor Programs k
Branch. Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Weshington, D.C. 20555, telephone (301) 492-8080.
SUPPLEP .TARY INFORMATION:
INTRODUCTION i The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (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 Comission consider additional appropriate measures to t
E L
O O
, t ,
provide reasonable assurance that a person who is under thE. influence of p j- alcohol or any substance legal or fliegal which affects that person's ability
, .. to perform duties safely, is not allowed access to a vital area at a nuclear power plant.
t L Th'e nuclear power industry, with assistance from programs developed and coordinated by EEI and the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0),:has made and is continuing to make substantial progress in this area.
BACKGROUND
, A Task Force on Drug Abuse Problems, Policies, and Programs established in ,
top (,G U .
[ 1982 by EEI's Industrial Relations Division Executive Advisory Committee. -
published guidelines in 1983 to help the industry address the issue of how 4
to establish comprehensive fitness for duty programs. They were subsequently ~
revised in 1985 as the "EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol /Fitnessdor 4
Duty Policy Development" and were provided to all nuclear utilities.
A series of EEI sponsored regional conferences in the fitness 'for duty area in 1982 and 1983 provided a forum for discussion of industry conc 6rnitelated 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 EE! in October 1985 provided the basis for reddi.tJonal discussions on fitness for duty based on the current EEI guidelines whichwad
( been expanded to include infomation on chemicai resting. As a result of O
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - ' - - ' ~ ~ - - - - - - - ^ - - - - - ' - - - - - - - ' -
, increased awareness in this area, the nuclear industry has worked to develop (and implement improved fitness for duty programs. These programs concentrate J on the training of managers, supervisors, and others in methods for identifying 1 e !
Qyyl/, ,[. ,-(sand dealing with personnel potentially unfit for duty.
% g . k1:.~
+ On August 5,1982, the Commission published in the hderal Register ~a proposed rule on fitness fr ,uty (47 FR 33980). The proposed rule w uld have required licensees to esablish and implenent written procedures for ensuring that personnel in a nuclear power plant are fit for duty. Due to the initiatives taken by the nuclear industry, the Commission has decided to defer implementa-tion of the rule subject to successful implementation of fitness for duty programs by the industry as described in this Policy Statement. NRC is r publishing a separate notice in the Federal Register withdrawing the proposed I
rule, analyzing the comments on the rule, and explaining its intent to reassess the possible need for rulemakin'; after an 18-month period, if circumstances warrant. The following statement sets forth the Commission's policy on fitness for duty and oescribes how it will execute its responsibilities in this area to ensure the heelth and safety of the public.
p0LICY STATEMENT 1
The Comission recognizes that the industry, through the initiatives of the Nuclear Utility Nanagement and Resources Committee NUMARC), EEI, and INPO,
. has made progress in developing and implementing nuclear utility employee fitness for duty programs. The Comission stresses the importance of industry's initiative and wishes to further encourage such self,-improvement.
' }f ?.R a
o Q;. .
Subject to the continued success of industry's initiatives in implementing .
. som s f.itness for duty programs and NRC's ability to monitor the effectiveness of ge
.those programs, the Comission will refrain from new rulemaking on fitness ' ]*
for duty of nuclear power plant personnel for a minimum of 18 months from 7
the effective date of this Policy Statement. The Comission's decision to defer implementation of rulemaking in this area is in recognition of indust.ry efforts to date and the intent of the industry to utilize the EEI Guidelines in developing fitness for duty programs. The Comission will exercise this deference as long as the industry programs produce the desired results.
However, the Comission continues to be responsible for evaluating licensee's 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 dur's the 18-month period.
At the Comission's request, the industry agreed to undertake a aview of the program elements and acceptance criteria for a fitness for duty program.
EE! modified and issued the revised EE! Guide to Effective Drug 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 progra o elements and criteria for fitness for duty programs developed by the industry n l..
are provided tc NRC for review and coment.
1 The NRC will evaluate the effectiveness of utility fitness for duty programs by its nonnal review of industry activities, through reviews of INPO program status and evaluation reports, periodic NRC observation of the conduct of j t
'.6
.? ,
[hb E'
- ~ . - . - , _ ~ ~ - ~ -
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - - _ . - - _ - u
'h [
I INP0 evaluations, and direct inspections conducted by the NRC's Performance Appraisal Teams,- Regional Office, and Resident Inspectors. NRC will also
, i monitor the progress of individual licensee programs.
By way of further guidance to licensees, Comission expectations of licensee programs for fitness for duty of nuclear power plant personnel may be sumarizeci as follows:
o It is Comission policy that the sale, use, or possession of j
I alcoholic beverages or illegal drugs within protected areas at
' nuclear plant sites is unacceptable.
o It is- Comission policy that persons 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. ;
l 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 area will result in imediate revocation of access to vital areas and discharge from nuclear power I plant activities. The use of alcohol or abuse
l V
d
>,j- O _y. O '
St K.
y of legal drugs within the protected area.will
- .,,,qp l,] I' result in imediate revocation of access to
+-
y
.7 vital areas and possible discharge from nuclear
};. power plant activities.
y;
~
,?; (2) A provision that any other sale, possession, or Q'
f use of illegal drugs will result in immediate U.
4 revocation of access to vital areas, mandatory (f. i rehabilitation prior to reinstatement of access,
,[, . . and possible discr.arge from nuclear power plant 1
. activities.
,y I'
in
~'
(3) Effective monitoring and testing procedure: to provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power
, plant personnel with access to vital areas are fit for duty.
.f.
The industry, by periodic briefings or other appropriate methods, is expected L, c . to keep the Comission informed on program status. The NRC ray also from time to time ask individual licensees to provide such information as the Commission may need to assess program adequacy.
f i
ENFORCEMENT
, L;t:
- . Violations of any applicable reporting requirement or instances of a person being unfit for duty su:h that plant safety is potentially affected will ,
.j7
_m.
i
- {
I
i li lb
, t be subject to the enforcement process. Any NRC staff enforcement action pertaining to fi'tness for duty of nuclear power plant personnel during the
. 18-month grace period will be undertaken only with Commission concurrence.
I In addition to required reports and inspections, information requests under 10.CFR 50.54(f) may be made and enforcement meetings held to ensure under-standing 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 to recognize industry initiatives in no way changes the NRC's ability to issue orders, call enforcement meetings, or suspend licenses should a significant safety problem be found.
Nothing in this Policy Statement shall limit the authority of the NRC to cor: duct inspections as deemed necessary or to take appropriate enforcement action when regulatory requirements are not met.
The separate views of Commissioner Asselstine follow:
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 t in a drug or alcohol impaired state. This policy statement puts i
i
~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - -
ev e, j
O _,_ o
+
l-i the Comission on record as endorsing the concept of a drug and l
'l alcohol fre'e workplace at plant sites, and that is useful. The g f
- d;' statement also gives some guidance on what the Comission expects
, t "; '
i of licensee fitness for duty programs. However, I believe that et '-
P i the Comission should have gone further.
' y ;'
c t $.$
g Instead of merely issuing a policy statement, the Comission 9k should have promulgated a rule. The rule should be a relatively
[f simple, nonprescriptive rule which would do two things. First.
it would prohibit anyone who is unfit for duty from being Q.J hA permitted access to vital areas of plants. Second, it would y;
's! ,
$ '". require licensees to have o program and procedures to ensure 1
it % that no one who is unfit for duty gains access to vital areas.
1 The Comission should then work with the industry to develop ig.:. guidance on what are the essential elements of an adequate
.r:
kh fitness for duty program. There are several reasons why I te hi believe that this would be a better approach. l Y$
.y v
af;. The most important reason for my preference for a rule and 7 :,
k, specific guidelines is that a rule is enforceable while a n
l y;/
policy statement is not. With a rule the Comission would
- T-have a clear basis for enforcement action in all cases in which a utility fails to establish and maintain an effective N
i fitness for duty orogram. The NRC has broad authority under N the Atomic Energy Act to take enforcement action by issuing 9;c.;
an order should there be an immediate threat to public health
- dit
' g:
y l,
q____'
i W
e ,
t i L i
d and safety. The Commission would also be able to take l
enforcement hetion if it could tie a specific safety problem '
to a lapse in the licensee's fitness for duty program, j
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 malfunctions, it is unlikely that
. i 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 imediate threat occurs and then trying to correct the fitness for duty program after the fact is not I. the best way to ensure that licensees have effective fitness for duty programs. Thus, our general enforcement authority does not provice us with enough flexibility to deal with all l
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. Thir )licy 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 Comission does provide is i fairly vague. The policy statement provides little insight
l 1
O O
l ;- - 11'- !
L i.
9 l
into what the Comission considers to be an adequate fitness
- }
.j for duty program or what standard the staff is supposed to use ]
j j as it monitors the progress of the industry over the next eighteen months.
1 1 2 ,
'1 '
The Comission should work 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 ror duty program,
- the utilities can and probably will adopt widely differing i
approaches on such elements as chemical testing and offsite -
{
drug use. Not all approaches are likely to be acceptable.
5( \
The Comission should not wait until 18 months from now, I
[
when all the utilities are supposed to have their programs 3 in place, to let the industry know whether the Commission
). !'
agrees with what they have done. The Comission and the
(. industry ought to decide now which elements are absolutely rb essential to an adequate program, and then everyone will
{k.
e-
- gg be working from a common base of understanding.
..e e
aM----- - _ __ _ _ _ . . . - , .
j..
I p w h
12 I The Comission and the industry should also establish the specific criteria-against which irdividual licensee programs will be evaluated so that the ground rules for evaluating programs and for monitoring progress will be in place before p
the 18 month monitoring period begins. Absent such guidelines, it is difficult to see how INPO~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 tnat all stilities meet at least a minimum set of standards, I believe the Comission should i
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.
The additional views of the Commission follow:
The Comission does not share Commissioner Asselstine's great concern about the legally non-binding character of the policy statement per se. The Comission's hands are I i
not tied if it finds inadequate compliance with straight-forward and explicit policy guidelines. The Atomic Energy
, Act confers broad authority for the Comission to take prompt enforcement action should any licensee facility, '
in the Commission's judgment, not be operated in a manner I
l
^-
-____.m_ __ __ . - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ ,
Q $ '
.a ~ . .
2 )
- .1
- 1 that protects the public health and safety. A policy
.v] statement, at this juncture, offers the quickest means
% to achieve the eid we All desire.
V
- ~
!)
d /
Dated at Washington, D. C., this 36 day ofju// 1986.
g for the Nuclear Regulatory Comission W. .
Lando W. Zech, .
Chainnan
, 8: '
jg,."
g S$
M.'.,. '
4 G
. x
< ?.
1 w
Y.
l* '
hj{*;.
}fL?
, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' ' ' ^ " - " " - - - - " ~ ~ - - - -
$e :.'. : ..
,- )
STAFF RESPONSE.TO LICENSEE PERSONNEL POSITIVE DRUG TESYING Adopt general staff position parallel to provisions of proposed. rule Non-licensed operator Onsite use, sale, possession -- remove from Protected Area access l Test positive (confinned) l
- 1st time - rehab program
- 2nd time - remove from Protected Area access for 3 years l Utility expected to take the above action NRCwillissueshowcauseorder(ifneeded) >
Licensed operator Onsite use, sale, possession -- remove from Protected Area access . ) ,
Testpositive(confirmed)
.
- 1st time - rehab program
- 2nd time - remove from Protected Area access for 3 years Utility expected to take the above action NRC takes no action after 1st offense unless utility does not enter into rehab program i
NRC suspends operator's license (imediately effective) after 2nd offense and issues order to show cause why license should not be revoked Draft position -- J. Sniezek, June 20, 1986 1 1 i
, fJ (LU - NIU GM
_____---_m.m_--____-._m__ __-_t.