LIC-88-1031, Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty. Endorses NUMARC Comments.Believes That 100% Annual Testing Frequency Appropriate as Adequate Deterrent & More than 100% Would Install Burden of Excess for Certain Employees

Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty. Endorses NUMARC Comments.Believes That 100% Annual Testing Frequency Appropriate as Adequate Deterrent & More than 100% Would Install Burden of Excess for Certain Employees

ML20195J365
Person / Time
Site:	Fort Calhoun
Issue date:	11/21/1988
From:	Morris K OMAHA PUBLIC POWER DISTRICT
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00367, 53FR36795-367, LIC-88-1031, NUDOCS 8812020103
Download: ML20195J365 (2)

Text

.

OOCKET NUMBER r)g 3(j7 R0 POSED RULE i n c26

-__=J==

_ =

Omaha Public Power District 88 m/ 28 P1 :36 1623 Harney Omaha. Nebraska 68:02 2247 402/536-4000 November 21, 1988 ,L<

LIC-88-1031 -

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

Reference:

Docket 50-285

SUBJECT:

Proposed rule on Fitness-for-Duty (10 CFR Part 26)

Omaha Publi: Power District (0 PPD) has reviewed the subject proposed rule on Fitness-for-Duty (53 FR 36795) and endorses coments that were subinitted on behalf of the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc. (NUMARC) In addition to endorsing their comments, OPPD submits the following cements on questions in the discussion section, pages 36796 and 36797.

Discussion Ouestion 3:

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

Coment: Random Frequency - A 100% annual testing frequency is appropriate as an adequate deterrent; more than 100% would in all probability exceed adequate and install a burden of excess for certain employees dependant upon the number of times the random program would identify that individual within a specific period of time.

A 300% random testing, which v:ould result in 95% of the employees being tested within one calendar year would probably be interpreted as annual testing on a random period throughout the year rather than a pure random testing program.

Discussion Ouestion 5 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 proceu 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?

g20g103001121 26 53FR36795 PDR 455od opponun%

tmeiowmengyn buo

i 4 ,

Coment: Privacy - Privacy of individuals must be protected in order to support not only the affected employees, but to generate confidence within managers and supervi.: ors. Documentation should be limited to Corporate personnel files wit.h r. roper "

communications between Employee Relations Division rad these managers +nd supervisors within the affec*;ed division who should be made aware of any actions.

Discussion Ouestion,J.: ,

How long should a person be barred from performing acti'ities within the scope of the proposed rule following removal under the fitness for duty policy and under what circumstances should reinstatement be alloweo? How long should records of this removal be retained to facilitate future employment decisions?

Comments: Affected Period Upon Detection - Individuals should be barred from performing activities within the scope of the proposed rules following the removal under the fitness for duty program until ,

such time as competent medical authority verifies freedom from any substance and can reasonably advise the Corporation that the  ;

employee has given every indication of remaining fit for duty.

Recommend that records without any recurrence should be retained no longer than a three-year period.

Sincerely,

. orris Division Manager Nuclear Operations KJM/brh/sa c: LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae R. D. Martin, NRC Regional Administrator '

P. D. Milano, NRC Project Manager P. H. Harrell, NRC Senior Resident Inspector l

,