AECM-88-0229, Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program.Attachment to Ltr Provides Answers to Specific Questions Posed by Commission in Proposed Rule

Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program.Attachment to Ltr Provides Answers to Specific Questions Posed by Commission in Proposed Rule

ML20195H064
Person / Time
Site:	Grand Gulf
Issue date:	11/18/1988
From:	Cesare J SYSTEM ENERGY RESOURCES, INC.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00303, 53FR36795-303, AECM-88-0229, AECM-88-229, NUDOCS 8811300203
Download: ML20195H064 (7)

Text

-

g 6'5 FA 34 7pg %h frNoYer[E[E g im 21 R2 39

.rx c, ctsrtn IIL1cevn November 18, 1988 m l ]C -

Secretary of the Comission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

SUBJECT:

Grand Gulf Nuclear Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50-416 License No. NPF-29 SERI Comments on Proposed Rule on Fitness-for-Duty Program AECM-88/0229 SER: appreciates the opportunity to provide coments on the NRC proposed rule titled "Fitness-Fcr-C.uty Program" published in the Federal Register (36795),

Vol. 53, No.184, on Septt:mber 22, 1988.

The Comission's Policy Statement regarding fitness-for-duty provides adequate guidance. The industry initiatives in developing and implementing a fitness-for-duty program based on this guidance has been effective. SERI supports the continuation of industry resolutions and self-initiatives based on regulatory policy. We do however, understand the Comission's concerns regarding the matter of fitness-for-duty and the intent to issue a rule.

As a member of the Nuclear Management and Resources Ccuncil, Inc., (NUMARC),

SERI joins in supporting the proposed rule. NUMARC has conducted a thorough review and analysis of the proposed rule. Important issues raised by the NUMARC review indicate the need for a nunber of significant changes in the rule to enable the industry to comply. SERI totally supports NUMARC coments to the Comission on this propo:ed rule.

The attachment to this letter provides SERI's answors to specific questions posed by the Comission in the proposed rule. In addition SER1 has particular concerns about several requirements of the rule which we believe would have a significant adverse impact on the industry or effectiveness of the program.

These concerns are:

The cut-off level of 95 nanograms for THC is too high to achieve the program goal of a drug-free force. Industry experience indicates a cut-off level of 50 nanograms or lower would be more effective.

8811300203 0011.9 PDR PR 2b S3FR36795 PDR r o to n: : l;on. vssssm s::sr l e.mu; r 016AECM8811160) - 1 " ' * * ' *

• g/ 6

AECM-88/0229 Page 2 Random drug testing of 300% of the population annually is excessive.

The industry average of 25% annually has provided an effectNe sampling. However, a higher sampiing rate of 100% annually would provide a strong deterrent.

Requirements to provide appeal processes and Employee Assistance Program referrals and ::ervices to contractors or require contractors to provide such programs would be an excessive and unnecessary cost to licensees. The necessity and benefit of such programs to contractors, especially temporary workers during outages, is questionable. The Commission should eliminate this requirement.

Providing continuing observation training to escorts is unnecessary and would be unusually burdensome on licensees. All employees should receive drug educational and awareness training which would suffice for their duties as routine escorts.

SERI appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.

Yours truly, W--

JGC:bms Attachment cc: Mr. W. T. Cottle (w/a)

Mr. T. H. Cloninger (w/a)

Mr. R. B. McGehr? (w/a)

Mr. N. S. Reynolds (w/a)

Mr. H. L. Thomas (w/o)

Mr. H. O. Christensen (w/a)

Mr. Malcolm L. Ernst (w/a)

Acting Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Region !!

101 Marietta St., N. W., Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323 -

Mr. L. L. Kintner, Propet Manager (w/a)

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regul1 tion U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 14B20 Washington, D.C. 20555 l

J16AECM88111601 - 2

Attachment to AECM-88/0229 Coments to Questions in Discussion Section of Fitness-For-Duty Proposed Rule Question (1:

Are there practical alternatives to random testing not discussed herein that provide equivalent deterrence and detection to drug use?

Answer: No other practical method is available.

Questinn g What practical alternatives not discussed herein exist that could, determine physical impairment?

Answer: Impairment should not be addressed. We should be concerned about illegal drug use.

Question p:

What rates of random testing and retesting provide an acceptable probability of detection and adequate deterrence? What should be the basis for any further modifications in the rate for random testing?

Answer: The random selection rate should not exceed 100%. Extensive industry experience indicates that the 300% proposed selection rate would not

produce any more effective results than 100%.

Question H: Are there effective alternatives to the "Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs" issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) on April 11,1988(53FR11970)thatthe Comission should adopt as minimum standarris for fitress-for-duty programs at nuclear power plants? -

l Ariswer: The Comission should provide specific guidelines in the rule. The DHHS guidelines do not apply to the nuclear industry and in fact p

J16AECM88111601 - 4

Attachment to AECM-88/0229 could be prohibitive in nature due to their requirement for a medical review officer certification prior to imposing sanctions such as withdrawing unescorted access.

Question g : Are there any additional quality control measures or appeal procedures that should be considered to protect the rights of individuals being tested to ensure that individuals are not misidentified in the process as drug users and to provide a mechanism to correct any errors? Specifically, who should have access to knowledge of the results of unconfirmed initial test results (employee, imediate supervisor, higher management levels)? What procedures are necessary to assure appropriate privacy?

Answer: Sound procedures with standard laboratory processes and evidential custody methods will ensure individuals' rights are protected.

Unconfirmed test results should be available to management responsible for access authorization to deny access pending confirmation. Confidentially of access denial should be limited to

, the individuals' imediate management and security officials.

Question 3: Should the Comission provide general guidance on potential impairments such as alcohol abuse and prescription drugs? How should such guidance be implemented in a fitness for duty pregram? Should any random 1

testing program be expanded to encompass legal drugs and alcohol? If so, should the response to a positive test for alcohol be the same as for illegal drugs? What should the response be to a positive test for legal drugs?

Answer: The industry nonnally conducts alcohol screening concurrent with 4

other drug testing. Current industry guidelines on alcohol abuse are adequate. If alcohol abuse is to be regulated by the NRC it should be under a separate rule.

l J16AECM88111601 - 5

Attachment to AECM-88/0229 li Question 17: How long should a person be barred from performing activities within the scope of the proposed rule following removal under the fitness for duty policy and under what circumstances should reinstatement be allowed? How long should records of this removal be retained to facilitate future employment decisions?

4 Answer: Minimum time frame requirements in the proposed rule imply everyone is rehabilitated at the same time. Reinstatement of access after the

, first positive should be based on a negative test result and a determination by management that an individual is suitably fit to return to work after consultation with qualified mental health professionals. A second positive drug test results for any reason usually reselts in a permanent denial of access.

Question 18: Are the categories of workers identified for testing appropriate, or is some other population necessary/ sufficient for safety? ,

Answer: Only those employees with unescorted access to the protected area should be included.

Question 19: Should training on the items covered under 3, 4, and 5 of 26.22(a) be provided to all employees covered under the rule so each employee can recognize drugs; indications of the use, sale, or possession of drugs; and j impairment of a person covered under the rule and know what action to take?

Answer: All employees should be made aware of drug abuse ar.) the fitness for duty program. Training for observint behavior of employees 'in the work place should be required only for supervisors.

i t

l l

l J16AECMS8111601 - 6 i

~

Attachment to AECM-88/0229 Question #10: Finally, the Commission is especially interested in receiving comments on the extent to which NRC regulations on fitness-for-duty should address other regulated activities not currently within the scope of this proposed rule, In the matter of requirements for fitness-for-duty programs at nuclear power plants undergoing construction and pre-operational tes+ing, the Connission requests views on: (1) the relative safety significance of the wide variety of specific construction steps and crafts involved, (2) the extent to which the controls described above do or do not tend to provide adequate identification or mitigation of individual failures in perfonnanc'e in these areas and, accordingly, (3) the nature and extent of any fitness-for-duty program elements which should be applied to these activities. An example might be the welding of reactor primary system boundarils, structures and supports, and safety-related systems, as opposed to balance of plant welding.

Answer: The scope of the fitness-for-duty regulation should be directed toward the protected areas of operating nuclear power plants and not extended to pre-operational construction activities.

APPENDIX QUESTIONS:

l Question M : Expand the scope of the rule to include other activities directly l related to nuclear safety performed by licensee and contractor personnel. This could include engineering and quality assurance activities performed'outside a protected area and activities perfonned by escorted licensee or contractor personnel within a protected area which, if not properly performed, could contribute to facility conditions adverse to public or worker safety. ,

Answer: This rule should not be expanded.

! J16AECM88111601 - 7

Attachment to AECM-88/0229 Ouestion g: Require that licensees take specific measures to deter onsite sale, possession, or use of alcohol and drugs and to achieve early detection should these problems exist.

Answer: Additional program requircments are not necessary.

Question p : The NRC developed a list of data that appear to be appropriate based upon informed reviews by appropriate professionals in other organizations. To ensure consistency of data and to facilitate analysis, the draft form below could be utilized. The Commission seeks specific comrnents as to whether the data listed fonn a relevant basf s for the evaluation of program performance and whether there are any other data which would be iinportant in this regard.

Answer: The program performance data proposeo by the rule far exceeds that necessary to measure performance. Numbers of positive test results i

for temporary outage workers would not present a true picture of effectiveness except for the testing process. This fonn should be revised to include only that data relative to progran objectives.

Comments to NRC Query concerning the backfit rele:

SERI believes that current industry programs concerning fitness-for-duty are  !

sufficient and a rule is not necessary to protect the public health and safety.

SERI also believes the cost of implementing this proposed rule is greatly underestimated in the backfit analysis. Cost items not included were the employee work lost time due to the testing procedure itself and the excessive administrative and tracking programs and quality control requirements the sdditional testing would generate, i

i J16AECN88111601 - 8