Purpose:

Background:

Discussion:

Contact:

EFFECTS OF NRC RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES ON INDUSTRY SELF
IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS OF NUMARC AND INPO

To present the results of recent staff meetings with the
NUMARC Steering Committee and to request Commission
direction regarding the Fitness for Duty Rule.

On July 5, 1984, the Commission approved the Fitness for
Duty Rule (SECY-83-339) subject to, among other items,
exploring "...with INPO and NUMARC their willingness to
undertake the development of detailed program elements and
acceptance criteria for a fitness for duty program." At the
August 2, 1984, Agenda Planning session, I outlined the
staff plans to conduct discussions with INPO and NUMARC on
this issue.

On August 22, 1984, a meeting of senior officials of the NRC,
NUMARC and INPO was held to discuss the effects of ARC
rulemaking on the efforts of NUMARC and INPO. Both the
Fichess for Duty Rule and the proposed Training Rule
(SECY-84-76A and 765) were discussed. The NUMARC Steering
Committee subsequently met on August 28, 1984, to develop a
position on their future efforts. Warren Owen of NUMARC
communicated their position in a telephone conversation with
me on August 29, 1984. The NUMARC position and its
ramifications on NRC rulemaking activities and industry
activities are discussed below:

The August 22, 1984, meeting with NUMARC and INPO
representatives was held to discuss the broad policy

implications of, and specifically to obtain, their support

Hugh L. Thompson, Jr., NRR

492-9595

and agreement to develop detailed program elements and
acceptance criteria for a fitness for duty program. We
reiterated our support for the industry to take the lead in
developing this guidance and encouraged them to accept the
Commission offer to leave implementation of this general
rule to the industry.

At that meeting, the industry representatives stated their
belief that any rulemaking or other form of mandatory
requirement undermines the voluntary efforts of the industry
toward self improvement. They further stated that NRC
rulemaking activities could have a significant negative
impact on industry support to NUMARC and to INPO, which is
the organization which implements industry initiatives. The
NUMARC Steering Committee planned to meet the following week
to develop a response to our initiative.

Subsequently, at the August 28 meeting, the NUMARC Steering AD I

Committee developed a position that NUMARC would be willing
to develop such guidance only under the condition that the
NRC not promulgate the Fitness for Duty Rule. They want
the NRC to promulgate a Policy Statement or Generic Letter
regarding fitness for duty which would not establish
enforceable requirements.

If the Commission continues to support the need for a
Fitness for Duty Rule, the staff will prepare the Federal
Register Notice and will have to develop detailed guidance
and evaluation criteria which would be the bases for plant
inspections and enforcement actions.

This position is similar to that taken by the industry
regarding the proposed training rule (SECY-84-76A and 768).
In fact, NUMARC reiterated their stand that a. Generic Letter
or Commission Policy Statement endorsing accreditation
without establishing enforceable requirements is the only
acceptable response to P.L. 97-425, §306 for the industry.

To underline the industry's concern with the effects of
mandatory training regulations, the NUMARC Steering
Committee has indicated that industry commitment to the
INPO-managed accreditation program would be reevaluated if
any form of training regulation is promulgated. This could
potentially result in the abolishment of the INPO
Accreditation Program. Since all of the training rules thus
far proposed assume that accreditation would be the
preferred means of implementing the training requirements,
modifications to our enforcement approach and resources
would have to be made. The staff position regarding this - -
issue and staff recommendations are in SECY-84-76B.

THE

RECUCA

SUBJECT: BACKGROUND ON ALCOHOL AND DRUG RESEARCH PERFORMED BY THE UNDERSIGNED

Per you request, I am forwarding three documents to you pertaining to the above subject. The first, Enclosure 1, is a work order dated June 18, 1982 initiating alcohol-drug research to support the Fitness for Duty Rule. The research was to be performed under FIN B2453, by the Pacific Northwest Laboratories (PNL) and Human Affairs Research Centers (HARC). The second, Enclosure 2, is a work statement dated September 10, 1984 resuming the research with funds remaining in FIN B2453 initiated by the Enclosure 1 work order. The third, Enclosure 3, is a work order dated September 17, 1984 diverting the funds from the Enclosure 2 work order.

By way of background, research to support the Fitness for Duty Rule commenced in June 1982. Early in 1983, Mr. Minogue became aware of that research. According to Minogue and Goller, as reported to me, the then EDO William Dircks directed them to: (1) terminate the research, and (2) make sure that the results of work completed to date "not see the light of day.' In a subsequent meeting between myself and Minogue he indicated another reason for terminating the research was that we don't have alcohol-drug related problems in the nuclear utility industry, and further, our justification for the Fitness for Duty Rule would be "prudence". The work begun under FIN B2453, therefore, was terminated by verbal order presumably by Karl Goller. Despite the purported Dircks directive, NUREG/CR-3196, "Alcohol and Drug Abuse: The Bases for Employee Assistance Programs in the Nuclear Utility Industry," was published in July 1983. According to our contract administrator (Marianne Riggs) and her counterpart at PNL, there was no written termination order submitted to PNL abrogating the June 18, 1982 work. Later, on September 10, 1984 (Enclosure 2), I was permitted to resume the work originally begun by the June 18, 1982 work order (Enclosure 1), by Frank Gillespie, using the remaining $50K still residing in FIN B2453 at PNL. One week later, presumably at the direction of Minogue, this latter research was formally terminated by the work order dated September 17, 1984 (Enclosure 3). The September 17, 1984 work order ended any research, by RES, in the area of alcohol-drugs up to the present time.

If I can be of further help in this matter, please let me know.

Enclosures: As stated

Tom Ryan
37637
M/S 007 NL

JUN 18 1982

nocepted 6/29/82

Mr. A. G. Fremling, Manager
Richland Operations Office
U. S. Department of Energy
P. O. Box 550

Richland, Washington 99352

Dear Mr. Fremling:

FY 1982 NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH ORDER NO. 60-82-340 FOR PACIFIC NORTHWEST
LABORATORY

Please authorize Pacific Northwest Laboratory to execute the program described
in the enclosed NRC Order.

If this meets with your approval, it is requested that acceptance be indicated
on the enclosed form and the original be returned to the NRC Office of Resource
Management and one copy to this office.

OFFICE

URNAME

RECORD NOTE: 1102 sent, 6/4/82

RES:RMB

Riggs

DATE

RES RMB

BES:DFOSFORES:DFO

Foreland/Hayes Ryan/Jenkins/Norberg/Cas

...6/4/82......16. 16 1/17/24

RC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240

Morrison

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

JUN 18 1982

Mr. A. G. Fremling, Manager
Richland Operations Office
U. S. Department of Energy
P. 0. Box 550

Richland, Washington 99352

Dear Mr. Fremling:

FY 1982 NUCLEAR REGULATORY RESEARCH ORDER NO. 60-82-340 FOR PACIFIC NORTHWEST
LABORATORY

Please authorize Pacific Northwest Laboratory to execute the program described
in the enclosed NRC Order.

If this meets with your approval, it is requested that acceptance be indicated
on the enclosed form and the original be returned to the NRC Office of Resource
Management and one copy to this office.

OFFICE

RES RMB RES RMB

SURNAME

DATE

RESIDE....RES:DFO

...Riggs... Foreland/Hayes..Ryan/Jenkins/Norberg/Castro....Morrison

...6/4/82. 16.76 (00..

NRC FORM 318 (10-80) NRCM 0240

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

KRE

RES:DFO
Goller

RES:ARCS

Cespie

6/15/82 6.13/85..