[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