MEMORANDUM FOR: William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations The staff discussed with the Commission the status of the three agency rulemakings vis-a-vis the position of INPO and NUMARC. The Commission directed the staff to write a policy statement The Commission directed the staff to hold any action on the current status of the fitness for duty rule until the policy -statement is drafted. (NAR) RES (SECY Suspense: 11/14/84) The Commission agreed to handle the subject of senior managers as a separate issue. (Subsequently, a meeting was scheduled tentatively for November 1, 1984.) 2 Commissioner Asselstine requested a legal analysis of whether enforcement action can be taken in the area of training development without a prescriptive rule. (OGC) (SECY Suspense: 11/7/84) The Commission directed OPE to submit its analysis of all three issues to the Commission (fitness for duty, training, and requirements for senior managers). The Commission directed (Commissioner Bernthal not present) the staff to publish proposed changes to 10 CFR 55 as contained in SECY-84-76A and make appropriate revisions to proposed Reg. Guide 1.8 (included in SECY-84-76A). No changes need be made in Reg. Guide 1.149 (in SECY-84-76A) and in Reg. Guide 1.134 (in SECY-84-76). (NRR) (SECY Suspense: 11/14/84) cc: Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts Commission Staff Offices PDR Advance DCS 016 Phillips I am responding to your November 7, 1986 letter concerning the Commission's Fitness for Duty Policy Statement. I am also enclosing answers to the questions that you asked in that letter. In your letter, you expressed concern over drug and alcohol abuse problems at nuclear facilities and whether the Commission's Policy Statement provided an effective response. The Commission recognizes that safe operation of nuclear facilities mandates the highest fitness for duty standards. Drug and alcohol abuse is a major problem affecting every segment of our society for which there is no simple solution. Given the complexity of the problem, the Commission encouraged the nuclear industry to take the initiative to address this problem. The policy statement, rather than a regulation, was issued to encourage industry initiatives. A majority of the Commission believes this approach offers an effective means of providing reasonable assurance that personnel working at nuclear power plants are fit for duty. You also expressed concern that this policy statement was prepared with improper deference to industry. The policy statement. was issued as an effective means to implement fitness for duty programs on an industry-wide basis. The NRC agreed to refrain from new rulemaking on fitness for duty programs for 18 months from the policy statement's effective date. The success of industry's initiatives in this area and our ability to monitor the effectiveness of industry programs will dictate whether the policy statement is continued or a new rule developed. Even in the absence of a specific rule, our authority in all matters which potentially affect nuclear safety provides a sufficient basis for NRC action in this area if warranted. The final concern you expressed was the potential use of drug testing programs as a means to retaliate against whistleblowers who raise safety issues. Federal law and NRC regulations protect employees from such reprisals. Employees may obtain job reinstatment and other remedies through the Department of Labor and the NRC will impose enforcement sanctions, such as civil penalties, for improper discrimination as appropriate. The response to Question 15 identifies the NRC regulations that address protection of employees. I do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to develop separate guidance on the protection of employees on matters involving drug testing. (Originated by: LBush: IE) -2 As you requested, a copy of your letter and its attachments was placed in the Public Document Room as comments on the Commission's Policy Statement on Fitness- for Duty. Commissioner Asselstine is away on official travel and will provide you with his separate views upon his return. QUESTION 11. b. c. d. a. After July 5, 1984, how many meetings did the NRC staff hold with INPO, NUMARC, or other industry representatives on fitness for duty issues? How many of these meetings were conducted in After July 5, 1984, how many other discussions How many of these discussions were conducted ANSWER. While NRC has not maintained a detailed accounting of all meetings and discussions between NRC and industry representatives, the following table lists our reconstruction of meetings and discussions between NRC and NUMARC or INPO: |