[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 231 (Friday, November 30, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 59823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29781]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 50-247, License No. DPR-26]
Entergy Nuclear IP2, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of
Issuance of Director's Decision
Notice is hereby given that the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, has taken action on the April 24, 2001, petition under
section 2.206 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR
2.206) submitted by Mr. David A. Lochbaum (petitioner) on behalf of the
Union of Concerned Scientists. The petition was supplemented by letter
dated May 3, 2001. The petitioner requested that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) issue a Demand for Information (DFI) to licensees that
use security personnel supplied by Wackenhut Corporation (Wackenhut),
requiring them to provide a docketed response explaining how they
comply with the requirement of 10 CFR 26.10 that licensees ``provide
reasonable measures for the early detection of persons who are not fit
to perform activities within the scope of this part'' and the
requirement of 10 CFR 26.20 that ``licensee policy should also address
other factors that could affect fitness for duty [FFD] such as mental
stress, fatigue and illness.''
The petitioner also requested that the DFI require each licensee to
generally describe its policy for the aforementioned factors and to
explicitly describe its policy for these factors as applied to the
security personnel supplied by Wackenhut.
As a basis for this request, the petitioner stated that:
An individual employed by Wackenhut Corporation and assigned
duties as a security officer at Indian Nuclear 2 was fired on June
26, 2000 * * *. The individual had worked five straight 12-hour
shifts [(12 hours on shift followed by 12 hours off for 5 straight
days)] and declined to report for a sixth straight 12-hour shift
because he reported to his management--in writing--that it would be
``physically and mentally exhausting.'' The individual reported to
his management--in writing--that he was fully aware of his condition
and ``would not want to be negligent in performing [his] duties as a
security officer.''
The security officer had unescorted access to Indian Point 2 and
thus was covered by 10 CFR part 26 as specified in Section 26.2 * *
*.
The petitioner also pointed out that Wackenhut employees are
required by terms of their employment application, Collective
Bargaining Agreement, and the Security Officer Handbook to report to
work when directed.
Thus, the petitioner contends that a worker employed by Wackenhut
at an NRC-licensed facility reported to his management that he felt not
fit for duty, declined to report for mandated overtime, and was
terminated.
The petitioner also stated that ``10 CFR 26.20 requires all
licensees to have formal policy and written procedures for factors that
could render plant workers not fit for duty. Fatigue is specifically
mentioned in 10 CFR 26.20.'' The petitioner contends that the
Wackenhut's contractual right conflicts with the Federal regulations in
10 CFR 26.10(a) and (b) and that in this case, the individual
essentially provided ``reasonable measures for early detection'' of a
condition rendering him not fit to perform activities within the scope
of part 26. The petitioner further stated that rather than respecting
the individual's judgment or seeking another opinion by a Medical
Review Officer or other health care professional, Wackenhut fired that
individual.
The petitioner addressed the Petition Review Board (PRB) on May 7,
2001, in a telephone conference call to clarify the bases for his
Petition. The transcript of this conference call is available in NRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) (Accession
No. ML012150128) and may be electronically viewed at the Commission's
Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The NRC sent a copy of the proposed Director's Decision to the
petitioner by letter dated September 28, 2001. The petitioner responded
with comments by letter dated October 2, 2001. The comments and the
staff response to them are enclosures to the Director's Decision.
The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation has
decided to grant the petitioner's request to the extent that the NRC
will address the petitioner's concerns through the generic
communication process. Specifically, the staff is developing a
communication to all nuclear power plant licensees subject to the
requirements of part 26. The communication will highlight the concerns
identified in the petition and articulate the NRC's requirements as
they apply to matters involving a worker's self-declaration of FFD. The
staff intends to issue the communication in the near future. Further,
as the staff proceeds with proposals to revise Part 26 and address
worker fatigue through rulemaking, it will consider the need to clarify
the NRC's expectations concerning worker declarations of FFD and work
scheduling. The reasons for this decision are explained in the
Director's Decision pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 (DD-01-05), the complete
text of which is available in ADAMS for electronic viewing at the
Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), at One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. The text is
also accessible through the ADAMS Public Library on the NRC's Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html (the Public Electronic Reading Room)
at Accession No. ML013230169. If you do not have access to ADAMS or
have problems in accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC
Public Document Room reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737
or by e-mail to [email protected].
A copy of the Director's Decision will be filed with the Secretary
of the Commission so that the Commission may review it in accordance
with 10 CFR 2.206(c) of the Commission's regulations. As provided for
by this regulation, the Director's Decision will constitute the final
action of the Commission 25 days after the date of the decision unless
the Commission, on its own motion, institutes a review of the decision
within that time.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of November, 2001.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
R. William Borchardt,
Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-29781 Filed 11-29-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P