fitness for duty programs with data-collecting, oversight, and enforcement mechanisms.

Whatever the specifics of the rule and programs, the need

for them is apparent.

Footnotes

[1] USSR State Committee on the Utilization of Atomic Energy, "The Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and Its Consequences," Information compiled for the IAEA Experts'

Meeting, Vienna, Aug. 1986.

[2] Dan Ford, Thirty Minutes to Meltdown, p. 19, Penguin Books, 625 Madison Ave., New York, NY 10022, 1981; and Warren Donnelly, Carl Behrens, Mark Martel, The Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: Causes, Initial Effects, and Congressional Response, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division, Science Policy Research Division, Congressional Research Service, p. CRS-3, Sept. 16, 1986.

[3] Harold Denton, NRC Director of Nuclear Regulation, testimony before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, June 6, 1986.

[4] "Personnel With Unescorted Access to Protected Areas; Fitness for Duty," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 47, No. 151, p. 33980, Aug. 5, 1982.

[5] Safeguards Summary Event List (SSEL), NUREG-0525, rev. 11, p. A14, fig. 12, Jan. 1986, Facility Assessment and Standardization Branch, Division of Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC

NUREG-0525 is published about a year-and-a-half behind the
Hence, the NRC has figures only through December 1985.

times.

The increase in the number of nuclear power plant employees abusing drugs occured during a period in which the number of nuclear power plants in operation or under construction actually decreased. In 1977 when the NRC recorded the first case of drug abuse, there were 206 nuclear power plants operating or under construction. At the end of 1985, there were 123. See "Historical Profile of U.S. Nuclear Power Development," Atomic Industrial Forum, Jan. 1, 1986, 7101 Wisconsin Ave., Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-654-9260.

[6] See N. 4, supra.

[7] "Increasing Frequency of Drug-Related Incidents," I&E Information Notice No. 82-05, March 10, 1982, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,

QUESTION 2.

Provide a list of all nuclear plants in operation
or under construction for which the Commission has
evidence or allegations of drug or alcohol abuse
problems in the past five years. In the Commission's
opinion, what plants represent the worst problems
in this regard?

ANSWER.

In this response the term "problems" is used to mean that at least one person has been identified as an abuser of alcohol or other drugs. Since reporting is currently voluntary, NRC does not have complete data. Included with this response is a list of the problems identified as involving reactor operators.

Attachment

(61)

Below are listed nuclear plant sites for which the NRC has received information since January 1, 1981 that at least one person has been identified or suspected as an abuser of alcohol or other drugs:

The NRC has no basis to judge what plants represent the "worst problems," especially since the more aggressive/effective programs are more likely to be successful at identifying abusers while at the same time be more successful in combatting the problem. However, analysis of available data indicates that contractor personnel are more likely to abuse drugs than plant operating staff (a typical situation during outages or construction).

The number of reactor operators reported as involved in drug related events since 1981 is as follows. As stated in the response to Question 3 none of the below events involved impairment of an employee that was reported as resulting in a safety problem onsite.

Grand Gulf (September 1981)

SRO arrested offsite for possession.

Sequoyah (October 1981)

Student operator trainee arrested for offsite sale of drugs.

QUESTION 7.

Please provide the Commission's position on each of the following issues raised by Commissioner Asselstine's views:

The Commission has not taken enforcement action against a licensee for failure to follow the guidance given in a Policy Statement. Individual enforcement actions are taked for violations cited against regulations, licenses, or orders rather than policy statements.

As indicated in the response to Question 5 above, a policy statement does not carry "requlatory" or statutory force which would be itself sufficient basis for an enforcement action.

ANSWER 7b.

Policy statements are not enforceable per se. If an unsafe situation arose at a licensed facility with respect to a matter covered by a policy statement, however, the Commission could issue an order under its general Atomic Energy Act authority to protect the public health and safety or the common defense and security. Such an order could require the licensee to take remedial action and impose appropriate license conditions governing matters otherwise covered by the Policy Statement.

ANSWER 7c.

NRC would not necessarily need a specific event to trigger action related to the policy statement. It remains NRC's continued responsibility, as noted in the policy statement, to independently evaluate development and implementation of fitness for duty