ML20034D539

Requests Commission Approval to Publish Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Re Mod to Random Drug Testing Rate

ML20034D539
Person / Time
Issue date:	01/26/1993
From:	Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:
References
FRN-58FR15810, FRN-58FR15884, FRN-59FR502 AE36-1-006, AE36-1-6, AE38-2-006, AE38-2-6, SECY-93-014, SECY-93-14, NUDOCS 9301290039
Download: ML20034D539 (41)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.. oooo................oooo RELEASED TO THE PDR I [p Rtcy A j M O date inifi .........'.........f.s g s 1 y a %...../ POLICY ISSUE January 26, 1993 (Notation Vote) SECY-93-014 For: The Commissioners From: James M. Taylor Executive Director for Operations Subiect: MODIFICATION TO THE RANDOM DRUG TESTING RATE purpose: To obtain Commission approval to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. Backaround: SECY-92-271 of August 4, 1992, provided the Commission with recommendations concerning modifications to the random drug testing rate for the nuclear power industry. By a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) dated October 20, 1992, the Commission approved the staff's recommended course of action (Option 5) and directed the staff to prepare an appropriate change to 10 CFR Part 26 that would permit licensees to randomly test their employees at a rate equal to 50 percent and maintain the 100 percent random testing rate for contractors and vendors. j Discussion: As instructed in the SRM, the staff has prepared a j proposed amendment' to the Fitness-For-Duty (FFD) rule for publication in the Federal _Reaister. The proposed Federal Reaister notice invites specific comments as to whether positions critical to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant should be excluded from the reduction in the random testing rate-Resource Estimate: Resources to implement this rulemaking are included in the FY 1992-1996 Five Year Plan, and no additional resources would be required for its implementation. NOTE: TO BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 230069 wuEn rue rinAL san 1s xADE AVAILABLE

Contact:

Loren Bush, NRR 504-2944

.a l n-t o-j Coordination: The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The CRGR has reviewed this paper. All comments have been addressed and the CRGR agrees with the publication of the l enclosed notice in the Federal Reaister. The ACRS decided not to review the proposed modification to the rule. I Recommendations: That the Commission: l 1. Approve publication of the proposed rule in the l Federal Reaister (Enclosure A) with a 90-day public comment period. l 2. Certify that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not [ have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This certification is e included in the enclosed Federal Reaister notice. 3. Note that: a. In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, the staff has determined that the proposed rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, neither an environmen-i tal statement nor an environmental assessment l has been prepared for the proposed rule, b. A draft Regulatory Analysis will be placed in j the NRC Public Document Room (Enclosure B). I This proposed rule does not amend information c. 7 collection requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. d. The appropriate Congressional Committees will i be informed of the Commission's action (Enclosure C). i A public announcement will be issued [ e. (Enclosure D). f. The Federal Reaister notice will be distributed to applicable licensees and other interested l parties. t l I

i h i g. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration will be informed of'the i certification and the reasons for it, as j required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. [ t Schedulino: If scheduled on the Commission agenda', recommend this -l paper be considered at an open meeting. No specific i circumstance is known to staff which would require i Commission action by any particular date in the near I term. [ f.)%,, -James M. Taylor ( )ExecutiveDirector for Operations

Enclosures:

A. Federal Reaister Notice of Proposed Rulemaking B. Draft Regulatory Analysis C. Draft Congressional Letter D. Draft Public Announcement i t Commissioners' comments or consent should be provided directly [ to the Office of the Secretary by COB Wednesday, February 10, 1993. Commission Stafi Office comments, if any, should be submitted to the Commissioners NLT Wednesday, February 3, 1993, with an infor-mation copy to the Office of the. Secretary. If the paper is of such a nature that it requires additional review and comment, i the Commissioners and the Secretariat should be apprised of when l comments may be expected. j DISTRIBUTION: f Commissioners OGC OCAA OIG OPA i OCp OPP EDO ACPS ASLBP SECY i i I l 9

i i-t i Enclosure A

-t i

'l I i -s t t I f t t t t i t i Federal Reaister Notice of Proposed Rulemaking t i t 6 I I I I i e + t a 't i i i '[ i h r ~! ) h

_m ~ [7590-01] l l I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i 10 CFR Part 26 t RIN 3150-AE36 Modifications to Fitness-For-Duty Program Requirements i i 1 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I i 2 j ACTION: Proposed rule. ] I

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its

-l regulations to modify current Fitness-for-Duty Program (FFD) requirements. The proposed amendments would apply to all licensees authorized to construct j or operate a nuclear power reactor pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50. The' proposed 7 rule is intended to permit licensees to reduce the random testing rate for licensee employees but maintain the 100 percent ' random testing rate for [ contractor and vendor employees. i f DATE: The comment period expires (insert date 90 days from date of publication in the Federal Register). Comments received after this date will l be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to l l assure considerati,.n only for comments received on or before this date. I I I [ 3

~.. s i .i . i ADDRESSES: Mail comments to: The Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, ATIN: Docketing and Service 2 i Branch. Deliver comments to: One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, i Rockville, Maryland between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays. l 1 Copies of SECY-92-271, the draft regulatory analysis, and the comments { received may be examined at: the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. ) (Lower Level), Washington, DC. L Copies of NUREG/CR-5758 (Volumes 1 and 2) and NUREG/CR-5784 may be i purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing l Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available l from the National Technical Information Service, 5282 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is available for inspection and/or copying for i a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), _ Washington, DC. j l i FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loren L. Bush, Jr., Reactor Safeguards Branch, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor 4 Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone: (301) 504-2944. l ] i i l ]

I -l s. t SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMA110N: j i

Background

j i i The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations governing " Fitness-for-Duty Programs," as part of its continuing effort to improve its regulations. I The NRC has reviewed experiences gained since publication of the current { rule on June 7,1989 (54 FR 24468) and implementation by power reactor licensees on January 3, 1990. The NRC has determined that it is appropriate [ to permit a reduction in the random testing rate for utility employees but maintain the 100 percent random testing rate for contractors and vendors. ) l 3 l During the FFD rulemaking process, the NRC had specifically invited the i public to comment on the rates of random testing (53 FR 36795 at 36796; j l September 22,1988). Public comments strongly opposed a proposed 300 percent rate; the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and most licensees .I i proposed a 100 percent rate. These commenters also recommended that this rate be reevaluated on the basis of utility experience and be reduced to 25 percent, if warranted (54 FR 24468 at 24472; June 7, 1989). As a result, the i i Commission indicated that it would consider reducing testing rates after { several years if it obtained information that experience in the industry with l i the existing rate had been positive (54 FR 24468 at 24474; June 7, 1989). On l November 7, 1991, the Commission directed the staff to report on work that has I been done on the deterrent effect of different testing rates with l recommendations of the applicability of the work to the nuclear industry. j I I t m

=_ r 4 1 SECY-92-271 informed the Commission that no research exists that directly j addresses the issue of wh_ther reducing the random testing rate affects the deterrent effect of drug testing and presented options for consideration by the Commission. On October 20, 1992, the Commission instructed the staff to l i prepare a change to 10 CFR Part 26 that would permit licensees to randomly test their employees at a rate equal to 50 percent, j i b a i Discussion 5 The purpose of random testing was discussed in the Federal Register in i J the Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 22, 1988 (53 FR 36795 at 36810). An extract of that discussion follows: "The purpose of random (unannounced) testing is to provide reasonable assurance that employees are fit for duty by j i identifying current drug users and by deterring drug users from further use or potential users from initial use. The frequency with which an indivicual is tested is relevant to both the identification and deterrence goals of the drug testing program. Generally, the more frequent the testing, the greater the deterrent effect and the better the detection capabilities. However, very frequent 1 i testing may result in unacceptable economic or sorial l 4 costs. Although there is no research upon which the l testing frequency may be based, it seems reasonable to assume that: l 4-j l )

o Any form of unannounced testing would provide some level of deterrence. There would be little deterrent if the testing dates were predictable and the drug user knew he was not immediately susceptible to another test. Testing each day would provide more of a deterrent than testing once each week or month, especially if the daily activity was highly visible. Deterrence is related to either the l actual or perceived probability of detection. The actual probability of detection is related to the type of drug, dose, frequency of use, rate of metabolism and i excretion from the body, and the frequency j of testing. 1 ~ i The perceived probability of detection is related to the frequency of testing, the " publicity" given positive findings and sanctions imposed, and the abuser's knowledge of the rate of 1 metabolism and actual probability of detection.' - - - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - _ _ - - - - - - - _

-t The NRC recognizes that not all workers are deterred and that random j testing does contribute significantly to the detection of substance abuse by those few who are not deterred. The workforce may be divided into three groups concerning the deterrent effect of random testing. i The vast majority of workers do not abuse substances because of any of several reasons, usually concerns for health. Random testing does l not influence the behavior of this group. There would be no deterrent effect. A small percentage of workers are chronic abusers. Random testing would have little, if any, influence on this group. There would be no I deterrent effect. Random testing would eventually detect these people. t l l An unknown percentage of workers are, or could be tempted to be, occasional users and may be able to aostain if properly encouraged. } The deterrence effect of random testing would cause them to refrain from initial use or to modify their behavior if they are occasional users. Random testing would have the greatest influence on this group. f The random testing rate has been an issue with other Federally regulated ] or administered random testing programs. The issue is the balancing of program goals. The optimal random drug testing program is one that maximizes [ l: both detection and deterrence of substance abuse while minimizing monetary and i social costs (e.g., employee morale). To maximize detection, other factors remaining constant, it is assumed that more testing will result in more ) i i

i detection. In maximizing deterrence, random testing rates have been j influenced by assumptions that the probability of being selected for testing l would have a deterrent effect and that the higher the testing rate the greater the deterrent ef fect (although the incremental deterrent effect would likely diminish as test rates increase). These assumptions are based on both j 1 intuition and earlier efforts by the Department of Defense that indicated a greater deterrent effect at higher random testing rates. In minimizing monetary and social costs when establishing a minimum random testing rate, factors such as the level of intrusion on an individual's privacy and the r incremental costs of additional testing are considered. In attempting to establish optimal testing rates that are reasonable and consistent with each agency's unique needs, Federal agencies have established programs with random testing rates that vary from 4 percent to 200 percent. l l 1 k Perceptions of risk are believed to play a large role in deterring-substance abuse. For example, from studies of drunk driving and deterrence j measures, researchers conclude that the risk of incurring strong sanctions appears to have a strong deterrent effect on substance abuse. In addition, research on human decisionmaking and risk assessment suggests that an individual's perceptions of the risk of being tested and the risk of drug use i being detected are not based on rational calculations of probabilities alone. L Individuals tend to overestimate the likelihood of low probability events ) e (being selected for testing) and tend to incorporate into their decisionmaking the information that is most easily recalled. I 1 ! f

Deterrence is believed to be a function of the perceived risk of being detected, the severity of the sanction, and the swiftness with which it is [ t applied compared with the gratification derived from the illicit behavior. Several conclusions may be drawn from review of the available literature: f I (1) The deterrent effect of random drug and alcohol testing programs may ( not be sensitive to incremental ad.lustments in random test rates. While l random testing remains critical in deterring drug abuse, it is only one of the r I forces acting to deter drug use. Other important factors include the elements of a broadbrush program (e.g., awareness training, pre-access and for-cause testing, behavioral observation, counseling, and removals) as well as organizational and workforce demographic factors and drug-specific factors. (2) Assuming equal testing rate:; and procedures, there will be a greater deterrent effect when the risks of drug abuse--including the probability of 7 1 detection--are well understood than when they are not. (3) Some users will remain undeterred. Based on tive findings of the military and research on drunk drivers, some part of the population continues to abuse drugs or alcohol even when detection and sanctions are highly i certain. Regardless of the random testing rate, some users may not cease their drug use under any condition. Thus, other program elements, such as behavioral observation, for-cause testing, and employee assistance programs, I l are important to provide additional assurances to detect and remove chronic I drug abusers from the workforce. However, a higher random testing rate would I more rapidly detect these undeterred users (see Appendix C to NUREG/CR-5784). i, t E

l Studies on random testing have found that higher testing and discharge rates may result in higher overall detection of drug abuse in the workforce (see Durbin, et al.,1991). In terms of deterrence, continued drug use by identified users has been shown to be a substantial factor in overall drug use rates, suggesting that a substantial number of those testing positive for j drugs are not deterred (Osborn & Sokolov,1990; Stoloff,1985). [ The NRC considered several alternatives in determining the appropriate f random drug testing rate for the nuclear power industry. The NRC considered \\ conducting a study that would reduce the random testing rate of some licensees j to 50 percent (experimental sites) and analyze that data against the data of licensees who would continue a 100 percent testing rate (control sites). The 7 experiment would have to run for several years to allow for delayed effects j caused by adjusted testing rates and to obtain a sufficient number of test 7 i results. The design of the study and the analysis of the results would have r i taken an additional year. The NRC has decided not to conduct such a study l i i because: (i) the relatively long period of time required to collect and 4 analyze the data would delay the Commission's action on this issue, and (ii) variables from site to site could mask any statistical differences between l i 1 l data from two test groups in the small absolute number of expected positive l tests. i l The NRC considered conducting an attitudinal study which would attempt l to show worker attitudes toward, and their understanding of, random testing. It was hoped that this study would provide a better understanding of how this f I particular component of the FFD program deters substance abuse and would help' j 1 i i ~

i determine whether the perceived deterrent effect varies as the rate of random testing varies. The NRC has decided not to conduct this study because: (i) the appreciabie time that would be required to design and administer the I l survey and obtain OMB approval would delay the Commission's action on the' issue, (ii) the study would tap worker attitudes rather than their' behavior, and (iii) the results of the survey, by themselves, would ~not provide a solid l basis for changes in the random testing rate. l t The NRC also considered awaiting and evaluating the results of the Federal Railroad Administration's test program (56 FR 22905; May 17,1991) which is now expected to be completed in late 1993. The NRC has decided not l i to await the results of this study because several factors may limit the ) application of the study to the nuclear industry: (i) .The railroad industry has fewer units (i.e., there are fewer carriers l i than there are utilities) and more employees per unit than the nuclear power industry; l i ~! (ii) The flexibility provided in Part 26 regarding cutoff levels, sanctions,- q and so forth suggests a potential for substantial variability of the-l t deterrent effects within the nuclear power industry; l f (iii) A rail line's employees are located across the country and, thus, are-- 4 subject to a range of local drug-use patterns and contexts. By contrast, the employees of a particular nuclear power plant tend to be l l l ! l l

h i located within a single geographic region, with one prevailing set of l t local drug-use patterns; and r (iv) The recently reported rate of. substance abuse detected through random j testing in the railroad industry is triple that in the nuclear power industry (approximately 1 percent as against 0.25 percent for power I reactor licensee employees for the first 2 years). Taking into account the uncertainties involved and the low rate of positive tests, the NRC has concluded that lowering the random testing rate from 100 percent to 50 percent would cause little, if any, decrease in the j t deterrent effect of random testing when applied to licensee employees, and that the rate of positive random tests for licensee employees is not likely to increase. However, experiences with random testing gained since publication ( of the rule have shown contractor and vendor employees testing positive at a i rate approximately double that for licensee employees. Because of the higher ') rate of positive tests for contractor and vendor employees, the NRC is not i proposing, at this' time, to lower the rate for that population. See chart, t b [ INSERT CHART] ( In conclusion, the NRC believes that the fitness-for-duty program can be ) revised to permit licensees to lower the random testing rate for licensee l employees without significant impact on the overall effectiveness of the i i program. Therefore, the Commission is proposing that 5 26.24(a)(2) be l modified to permit licensees to randomly test their employees at an annual l l rate equal to at least 50 percent. This would not preclude licensees from j i ! i l l

RANDOM TESTING 199_.0 1991 2-Year Totals 2-Year

1. Tests /# Positive
2. Tests /# Positive
3. Tests /# Positive Positive Rate Long-Term Contractors / Vendors 8,910/044 7,500/023 16,410/067 0.41%

Short-Term Contractors / Vendors 39,596/229 45,277/267 84,873/496 0.58% l All Contractors / Vendors 48,506/273 52,777/290 101,283/563 0.56%* Licensee Employees 100,237/277 101,041/220 201,278/497 0.25%**

• The range-for contractor employees during CY 1991 was between 0% and 1.53%,

with 7 sites having rates greater than 1.0%.

• • The range for licensee employees during CY 1991 was between 0% and 0.87%,

with 5 sites having rates higher than 0.5%.

i testing the employee workforce, or portions thereof, at a higher rate. For the present, the minimum rate of testing for contractor and vendor employees, whether under the licensee's program or an approved contractor or vendor program will remain at 100 percent. The NRC will continue to monitor-implementation of the rule and will modify the rule in response to industry l experience, advances in technology, or other considerations to ensure that the { i rule is achieving the general performance objectives set forth in 10 CFR 26.10. I Assuming that the deterrent effect of the 50 percent random testing rate l i 1 were to be about the same as that for a 100 percent rate, the proposed rule l could result in a reduction in the number of cases of drug and alcohol use by { licensee employees detected each year through random testing. Recognizing l this potential reduction in individuals being detected, the NRC is f f specifically interested in comments as to whether certain positions critical W f to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant, such as licensed reactor i operators, should be excluded from any reduction of the random testing rate. l .h Bibliography l i i l Durbin, N., Moore, C., Grant, T., Fleming, T., Hunt, P., Martin, R., i Hurphy, S., Hauth, J., Wilson, R., Bittner, A., Bramwell, A., Macaulay, J., j

Olson, J.,

Terrill, E., & Toquam, J. (1991). " Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry: A Review of the First Year of Program Performance and an Update of the Technical Issues (NUREG/CR-5784)," Washington, DC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. _ 12

Osborne, C.E., & Sokolov J.J., (1990). " Drug Use Trends in a Nuclear Power Facility: Data from a Random Screening Program." In S.W. Gust, J.M. Walsh, L.B. Thomas, and D.J. Crouch, (Eds,), Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation Data, Volume II. NIDA Research Monograph No. 100. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 25-43. Stoloff, P.H. (1985). The Effectiveness of Urinalysis as a Deterrent to Drug Use, p.11, Washington, DC: Department of the Navy. Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion The NRC has determine that this proposed rule is the type of action described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule. Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information colltction requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review and approval of the paperwork requirements. Since the proposed rule would reduce the random drug testing rate for i licensee employees from 100 percent to 50 percent, public reporting and recordkeeping burden for the collection of information is expected to be l

=- i reduced. The resulting reduction in burden is estimated to average 146 hours per site, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and j reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding the ) estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for further reducing reporting burden, to the Information and Records Mrnagement Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear i Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-3019, (3150-0146), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503. l Regulatory Analysis + j The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysis on this proposed i i rule. The analysis examines the benefits, cost savings, and costs of the alternatives considered by tiie Commission. The draft analysis is available j i for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level), -l Washington, DC. Single copies may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Single copies of the analysis i may be obtained from loren L. Bush, Jr., Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. l The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis. i Comments on the draf t analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading. l l 1 ' 1 i l l

t Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification { In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), the Commission certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule affects only the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants and. e activities associated with the possession or transportation of Category I t material. The companies that own these plants do not fall within the scope of. the definition of "small entities" set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act or the Small Business Size Standards issued by the Small Business Administration in 13 CFR Part 121. j l r i Backfit Analysis 1 The NRC has determined that the backfit rule, 10 CFR 50.109, does not apply to this proposed rule, and therefore, that a backfit analysis is not required for this proposed rule, because these amendments do not impose more stringent safety requirements on 10 CFR Part 50 licensees. j i l List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 26 j Alcohol abuse, Alcohol testing, Appeals, Chemical testing, Drug abuse,- Drug testing, Employee assistance programs, Fitness for duty, Management actions, Nuclear power reactors, Protection of information, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sanctions. -

i ~ For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the i Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. j as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 26. PART 26 - FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAMS e i 1. The authority citation for Part 26 continues to read as follows: f Authority: Secs. 53, 81,103,104,107,161, 68 Stat. '330, 935, 936, 937, 939, 948, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2137, 2201); secs. 201, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, 1244, 1246, as amended (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846). 2. In 5 26.24, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows: } i .I 6 26.24 Chemical Testing. i (a) * *

• l (2) Unannounced drcg and alcohol tests imposed in a statistically random-j and unpredictable manner so that all persons in the population subject to i

testing have an equal probability of being selected.and tested. The tests must be administered so that a person completing a test is immediately- -{ eligible for another unannounced test. As a minimum, tests must be administered on a nominal weekly frequency and at various times during the t r -1

I day. Random testing of contractor and vendor employees must be conducted at an annual rate equal to at least 100 percent of that workforce. Pandom j I testing of licensee employees must be conducted at an annual rate equal to at least 50 percent of that workforce. ? [ l -i Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of , 1993. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. t I r Samuel J. Chilk, f Secretary of the Commission. j l a e i f i r r ! l i f

...~- 7 i t Enclosure B t +, t I + ii Draft Regulatory Analysis t b ? b i ? = i; 6 ' h L f. 4 -!r t ? i 7 1 6 s 1 t . L I i i I ii ? ? 5 i i i ' t i ..L- ---.s

DRAFT REGULATORY ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED REVISION TO LICENSEE EMPLOYEE RANDOM TESTING RATE: PART 26 - FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAMS i January 11, 1993 r i i T h

O 1 i

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to modify its current Fitness-for-Duty Program requirements. The proposed amendments of 10 CFR Part 26 would apply to all licensees authorized to construct-cr operate a nuclear power reactor. The amendments would reduce the random testing rate for licensee utility employees to an annual testing rate of 50 percent but maintain the 100 percent random testing rate for contractors and vendors. These proposed changes are based on a review of licensee program performance r data, a literature review of detection and deterrence provided by random testing, and initiatives proposed by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC). This document contains a regulatory analysis of the proposed rulemaking. The document was prepared according to the guidance set forth in Reculatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Reaulatorv Commission, NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 1, May 1984. The change in the random testing rate could reduce the number of licensee employees identified as using alcohol or drugs in violation of a licensee's fitness-for-duty policy, the potentially small increase in unidentified users continuing to work should not significantly affect the 4 overall risk to the general public from plant operations. Staff estimate that the proposed rule change would result in annual i savings of approximately $41,000 per reactor conducting offsite testing, and i I about $44,000 per reactor conducting onsite testing, or $4.9 million annual savings industrywide. The present value of the proposed rule change assumes i an annual discount rate of five percent and an estimated operating life of l twenty-five years. The present value of the proposed rule change is approximately $607,000 per reactor conducting offsite testing and $651,000 per i reactor conducting onsite testing. The industrywide savings have a present value of approximately $72.5 million. i I 1 t i i [ f i f

CONTENTS I 1.0 Introduction...... I

1.1 Background

2 1.2 Statement of the Problem 1.3 Objectives of the Proposed Rulemaking............. 2 i 2.0 Reasonable Alternatives for Meeting the Regulatory Objective.... 3 3 2.1 Take No Action........................ 2.2 Await Rulemaking Pending Further Study 3 4 I 3.0 Consequences............................. 4 3.1 Estimation of Safety-Related Impacts 3.2 Estimation of Benefits and Cost Savings............ 5 9 3.3 Impact on Other Requirements 10 4.0 Decision Rationale I P i 4 i i l 2 ] ~ ii 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

i The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to modify its current Fitness-for-Duty (FFD) Program requirements. The proposed amendments to 10 CFR Part 26 would apply to all licensees authorized to construct or operate a nuclear power reactor. The amendments would reduce the random testing rate for licensee utility employees to an annual testing rate of 50 percent but maintain the 100 percent random testing rate for contractors and vendors. These proposed changes are based on a review of licensee program performance data, a review of random testing rates in other industries, a review of detection and deterrence provided by random testing, and initiatives proposed by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC). This document contains a regulatory analysis of the proposed rulemaking. The document was prepared according to the guidance set fortn in Reaulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission, NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 1, May 1984.

1.1 BACKGROUND

The NRC issued FFD regulations on June 7,1989 (54 FR 24468) applicable to licensees authorized to operate a nuclear power reactor and holding a permit to construct or operate a nuclear power plant. Licensee programs implementing the regulations were required to be in place by January 3,1990. The regulations require affected licensees to implement fitness-for-duty programs to reasonably assure that nuclear power personnel are not under the influence of any substance which (.an adversely affect the performance of their duties. The FFD regulations establish chemical testing requirements and testing standards for the abuse or misuse of alcohol and drugs. Four types of testing are currently required: (1) pre-access testing; (2) random testing at an annual testing rate equal to 100 percent of the tested population; (3) for-cause testing; and (4) follow-up testing. During the FFD rulemaking process in 1988, the Commission invited public l comment on the rates of random testing that would provide an acceptable probability of detection and adequate deterrence (53 FR 36795 at 36796; September 22, 1988). Public comments strongly opposed a proposed 300 percent rate. NUMARC and most licensees proposed a 100 percent rate and recommended i that this rate be reevaluated on the basis of utility experience and then be l reduced to 25 percent, if such a change was warranted. As a result, the Commission selected an annual random testing rate equal to 100 percent of the workforce subject to testing. The Commission also indicated that it would i consider reducing this rate in the future if it appeared that industry l experience with the existing rate had been positive (54 FR 24468 at 24474; June 7, 1989). l On November 7, 1991, the Commission directed the staff to report on i research into the deterrent effect of different testing rates and to present recommendations of the applicability of such work to the nuclear industry. SECY-92-271 informed the Commission that no research exists that directly addresses the issue of whether reducing the random testing rate would affect the deterrent effect of drug testing. { 1

i L i t 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The purpose of random testing is to assure that nuclear power plant workers are fit for duty by identifying current drug users, deterring drug users from further use, and deterring potential users from initial use. l Licensee program performance to date suggests that the rule has been effective in detecting and removing employees who violate the fitness-for-duty policy. As reported in NUREG/CR-5758, Volumes 1 and 2, in 1990, 148,743 random tests were conducted in the industry with an overall positive random test rate of 0.37 percant, or a total of 550 violations for drug or alcohol abuse. In 1991, 153,818 random tests were conducted in the industry with an i overall positive random test rate of 0.33 percent, or a total of 510 i violations for drug or alcohol abuse. i As reported by NUMARC in a letter from T. E. Tipton to B. L. Grimes dated September 20, 1991, the total lost productivity cost for 1990 was an estimated $6,300,000 (an average of $55,000 per reactor unit). Half of this lost productivity cost would be saved if the random testing rate was reduced to 50 percent for all licensee employees and contractors. With a 50 percent testing rate, annual savings due to reduced FFD program operating costs and reduced productivity losses would amount to about $100,000 per unit, an industry savings of about $12 million. Licensee employee positive rates have been relatively low. In 1990, 0.28 percent out random tests administered by licensees were positive. Contractor employees had twice the violation rate as licensee employees (0.56 percent were positive). Similarly, in 1991 positive random testing rates for licensee employees and contractors were 0.22 percent and 0.55 percent, respectively. Staff believes the cost saving; associated i with lowering the random testing rate for licensee employees could be substantial. 1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING 3 The Commission proposes that 10 CFR 26.24(a)(2) be modified to permit licensees to randomly test their employees at an annual rate equal to 50 percent. The 100 percent random testing rate would be maintained for contractors and vendors. The Commission believes that lowering the random ( testing rate for licensee employees to 50 percent would achieve the regulatory r objective of establishing a rate that provides adequate detection and l deterrence while being cost-effective. l l l 2 i 2

2.0 REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES FOR MEETING TIIE REGULATORY OBJECTIVE This section discusses the reasonable alternatives considered for meeting the regulatory objective identified in Section 1.3. 2.1 TAKE NO ACTION One alternative to the proposed amendment would be to take no action. i The current 100 percent testing rate for licensee employees would be maintained. This would be expected to result in detection levels similar to those found in the first two years of program pei formance. Any cost savings resulting from the proposed rule change would be foregone. 2.2 AWAIT RULEMAKING PENDING FURTHER STUDY The Commission considered conducting a study in which the random testing rate of some licensees would be reduced to 50 percent. The test result data from these experimental sites would be compared with the results of licensees that would continue a 100 percent testing rate. The experiment would have_to run for at least two years to allow for delayed effects caused by adjusted testing rates and to obtain a sufficient number of test results. The design of the study and the analysis of the results would have taken an additional year. The Commission also considered conducting an attitudinal study which would attempt to show worker attitudes toward, and their understanding of, random testing. The Commission also considered awaiting and evaluating the results of the Federal Railroad Administration's test program (56 FR 22905; May 17, 1991) which is now expected to be completed in late 1993. The Commission decided to proceed with this rulemaking because the research would have taken several years and would have provided no guarantee of shedding any further light on the subject of deterrence that would be useful in the Commission's attempts to identify an optimal random ~ testing rate. 9 l 3

--= 3.0 CONSEQUENCES This section discusses the benefits, cost savings, and costs that may i result from the implementation of the proposed rulemaking. 3.1 ESTIMATION OF SAFETY-RELATED IMPACTS Random testing, like the many other elements of licensee fitness-for-duty programs, is intended to achieve the three general performance objectives l of those programs. As discussed in the Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking, random urinalysis testing has two purposes: detecting current drug users and deterring drug users from further use or potential users from initial use (53 FR 36795 at 36810; September 22, 1988). While this proposed reduction of the random te: ting rate could result in fewer drug and alcohol abusers bring dete:ted, this change would have little effect on the overall 1 effecthcaess of licensee programs. While intuition would indicate that lowering the random testing rate would tend to lower the deterrence value of random testing somewhat, a review ~; of the literdture on such deterrence effects makes clear the difficulty of accurately measuring or predicting such a decline. Deterrence is thought to l be a function of the perceived risk of being detected, the severity of the + sanctions involved, and the swiftness with which sanctions are applied as compared with the gratification derived from the illicit behavior. While i these factors may directly affect the deterrence value of random testing, many i 6 other factors also influence people's attitudes toward drug and alcohol abuse. These include national drug use patterns; attitudes concerning health, safety, and employment risks of drug abuse; workforce demographic factors; and the effectiveness of unique fitness-for-duty program elements such as awareness t training, pre-employment testing, for-cause testing, and measures to prevent l subversion of the testing procedures. Because random testing is only one of the many factors influencing individuals' drug or alcohol use proclivities, it l can be concluded that lowering the random testing rate to 50 percent for licensee employees will not cause a substantial decrease in the deterrence value of licensees' random testing programs for that segment of the workforce. i (For further discussion regarding random testing rates and deterrence, see SECY-92-271.) Lowering the random testing rate could result in fewer fitness-for-duty violations being detected as a result of random testing. Based on experience with licensee implementation of fitness-for-duty programs and in consideraticn of the many elements of the program, reduction in the testing rate (for i licensee employees only) will have little impact on the overall effectiveness i of licensees' fitness-for-duty programs. It is anticipated that such a j reduction in the testing rate will not have much, if any, effect on the i deterrent aspect of random testing. The potential reduction in the number of licensee employees identified annually as a result of a reducted testing rate should have no significant impact on the effectiveness of Part 26 programs. j i i i n 4 l I s .r

3.2 ESTIMATION OF BENEFITS AND COST SAVINGS I The proposed amendment would result in significant cost savings to l licensees due to reduced costs associated with testing of licensee employees-l and with time lost from work. Based on information reported by licensees to 1 the NRC and contained in NUREG/CR-5758, Volumes 1 and 2, a total of 201,278 j licensee employees were tested randomly in 1990 and 1991, an average of-l 100,639 employees in one year. On average, each reactor randomly tested 868 j licensee employees (100,639 tests divided by 116 reactors). Under the i proposed rule revision, reducing the random testing rate to 50 percent would result in 434 fewer random tests of licensee employees annually per reactor l f

unit, The total costs of testing are comprised of three ce;t categories:

the I costs of chemical testing of employee specimens, the employee's time away from work (productivity costs), and the costs of obtaining and testing blind performance tests. The estimated cost of testing licensee employees is based i i on the following assumptions: i Based on information available to the NRC staff, 27 sites containing 42 reactor units currently conduct onsite testing, while the remaining 48 l sites containing 74 reactor units send all specimens for offsite 4 analysis. All specimens collected from licensee employees at 48 sites (74 reactor units) would be sent offsite to a NIDA laboratory for testing. The average cost of chemical testing by a NIDA laboratory is estimated 'to be 547 per test in 1992 dollars. This cost includes specimen collection 3 - labor; shipping to an offsite laboratory, initial screening and, if { necessary, confirmatory testing; and reporting of results to the l licensee. NUMARC estimated the cost of testing in 1990 to range between $15 and $100 for off-site testing. However, this estimate did not i i between$10and$115perspecimen.b{og,whichwasestimatedtorange j include the cost of specimen collect All specimens collected at 27 sites /42 reactor units would be analyzed = I ' Letter to Brian K. Grimes, NRC, from Thomas E. Tipton, NUM ARC, september 20,1991. kesting costs are very competitive. Evidence indicates that this competition is driving the costs of testing down, resuhing in signifwant cost variations between licensees, laboratories, and geographic ngion. Testing costs may also vary because they can be calculated in several ways, making direct cost comparisons and industrywide estimates difficult. For [ 3 t instance, a licensee may use a flat fee contract where a laboratory provides testing services over a certain period regardless of the total number of tests submitted for analysis. A second method of calnulating testing costs would be to charge a flat rate per specimen for the initial immunoassay screening, and pro-rate the more expensive costs of GC/Ms testing, which i 5 may be required for relatively few of the total nurnber of specimens. A third way to charge for laboratory testing is to I charge separately for immunoassay screenings and GC/Ms confirmatory testing. {For a review of testing methodologies, see NUREG/CR-5227 (1988), and NUREGICR-5227, supplement 1 (1989).) Additional cost savings associated with a corresponding reduction in the r umber of alcohol tests are expected to be minimal. 5 t f i k

i onsite. All presumed positive specimens and 10 percent of all negative [ specimens (for onsite testing quality assurance) would be sent offsite to a filDA-certified laboratory for analysis. The cost for testing specimens onsite is estimated to be 550 per test. Cost savings l associated with blind performance specimens are treated separately (see l below). Testing costs for specimen collection and screening include the t cost of assay kits and controls, labor and overhead for technicians, testing instrumentation (amortized or prorated), maintenance for i instruments, disposable equipment, and administration. In 1990, the average cost of an onsite test was reported by licensees to be $75, or i approximately 582 in 1992 dollars using the Projections of Gross fiational Product Price Deflator contained in 14UREG/CR-4627, inclusive of estimate of $50 per test is used. g of this analysis, the staff the costs noted above. For purpose Additional cost savings for reactors with onsite testing by reducing the number of presumptive positives to be sent to a laboratory for analysis. According to Durbin et al. (fiUREG/CR-5784, 1991), a study of 10 utility rFD programs found that 3.2 percent of on-site presumptive positive out i of the total number of prescreen tests were sent to a laboratory for j confirmation (434 tests x 3.2% = 14 tests). The estimated cost for sending presumptive positives to a laboratory for analysis is $47. This-l includes shipping, laboratory assessment, and reporting results to the licensee. I s 1 he average cost per test reponed by NUMARC is high relative to the NRC estunate in pan because NUMARC [ included the cost of blind performance specimens on a pro-rated basis in its 1990 test cost estimate. In 1990, the first year of program implementation licensees were required to submit blind performance specimens equal to So percent of all specimens sent to a NID A laboratory in the first 90 days of pmgram implementation and 10 percent thereafter. De rule currently requires licensees to submit a number of blind performance specirnens equal to 10 percent of all specimens -l a submitted to a NIDA laboratory for analysis. A pmposed rule change in sECY-92-308 would lower this percentage to 5 l percent. since blind performance testing costs are not included in the staffs per specimen estimate but are treated -l separately, a lower cost estimate is used to account for these unique first-year costs. } i i 'One utility reponed t at its costs for specimen collection and sercening per individual tested onsste are 5114 per specimen, inclusive of the costs noted above. His cost does not include blind performance testing costs or the one hour of productive time lost when the donor reports for testing. This licensee also reponed tiat the current cost to send a specimen to the NIDA certified laboratory for immunoasssy screening is s22, and laboratory analysis (GC/Ms confirmation only) is s36 per specimen (or s58 per test for presumed positi e specimens and quality assurance specimens). These onsite f specimen collection and screening costs appear to be a clatively high in comparison with costs reponed by NUMARC in 1990, in which the reponed cost of testing ranged in m 517 to 5151. with an average reported cost of 575 per spimen. i I Further. NUM ARC's 1990 testing costs included tb: cost of submitting blind performance specimens; the utility's reported cost of $114 per specimen does not. Because this one licensee's reported costs are at the high end of the spectrum of j industry testing costs, the staff believes the lower estinate of 550 per test should be used. In terms of total per reactor j i savings,if the 5114 cost per specimen for onsite testing and the isB cost for sending specimens offsite for laboratory analysis were used in lieu of the staff estimates of 150 and s47 respectively, the estimated annual savings per reactor conducting onsite testing would be $72,442. His figure can be compared with the staff saviags estimate of 144,070 for reactors conducting onsite testing (see below). since there is apparently wide variation in testing costa industrywide, staff l f ' believes that its more cortservative estimate should be used to avoid overestimating the cost savings to be derived Imm the proposed rule change. 6 l [

6 4 The rule requires licensees with onsite testing programs to send 10 percent of the negative specimens collected to an offsite laboratory for analysis as part of their onsite laboratory quality assurance program l ({434 tests - 14 tests] x 10% - 42 tests). The estimated cost for sending onsite facility quality assurance specimens to a laboratory for analysis is $47. This includes shipping, laboratory assessment, and reporting results to the licensee. l Licensees will also realize cost savings in reduced labor costs by reducing the time spent testing licensee employees. Assumptions for labor savings are as follows: U It would take an employee I hour to travel to the test site, be tested, and return to work. t Since the type of employee (job classification) affected by the proposed rulemaking would vary widely, a standard licensee employee wage rate of $45.06 per hour including a fringe benefit multiplier of 2.0 is assumed. The average utility employee wage rate was derived from information presented in NUREG/CR-4627, Abstract 6.3, Table 4.1. The average 1988 base wage rate was $16.56. With a multiplier of 2.0 for fringe i benefits, the wage rate was $33.12 per hour. Inflating to 1992 costs using an using an 8 percent average annual personnel wage rate increase, the estimated average 1992 utility employee wage rate is $45.06 per + hour. Licensee's cost of submitting blind performance test specimens to HHS-certified laboratories, as required by section 2.8(e)(2) of Appendix A to the rule, would also be decreased by this proposed revision. (The rule currently l requires licensees to submit a number of blind performance specimens equal to 10 percent of the total number of specimens collected; a proposed rule change 4 in SECY-92-308 would lower this to 5 percent, which is the rate used for this analysis.) Blind performance costs are treated separately from other testing costs for purposes of analysis. Blind performance.ests can cost $30 to $35 for manufactured specimens, including a master list of what the specimens contain. Other costs associated with blind proficiency testing include the cost of MRO review, decoding the master sheet against the test results l reported by the laboratory, and contacting the laboratory when blind proficiency questions arise or errors are found. Licensees who use off-site NIDA-certified laboratories may prefer to prepare their own spiked samples for off-site screening. The total estimated cost for a blind performance testing specimen prepared by the licensee is estimated to be about $3, plus the cost of testing, MRO review, and disposition. Overall, the costs per blind performance specimens may be expected to range from $50 to $80 per specimen t 1 when these f actors are considered.' The average cost is therefore assumed to be 565, inclusive of the costs noted above. There would be no additionallost productivity savings since the specimens would be collected at the same time and location. t 6Anhur Zetelman, Laboratory of Pathology, personal communication, February 27.1992. 7 l l

i i i The total savings per reautor unit for those licensees sending all specimens for offsite testing is estimated as follows: l Testing Cost Savings: 434 tests x 547.00/ test = $20,398 i Blind Performance Testing 434 tests x 5% x $65/ test - 1,411 Savings: Labor Cost Savings: 434 tests x 1 hour x 19,556 i 545.06/ hour - Total Cost Savings Per $41,365 1 Reactor: The total savings per reactor unit for those licensees that conduct l onsite testing is estimated as follows: i Testing Costs Savings: 434 tests x 550/ test - $21,700 l Presumed Positiva Test Savings (assuming a 3.2% positive 14 tests x $47/ test - 658 i rate) + 1 ) Quality Assurance Test l l Savings (assuming 10% of 42 tests x $47/ test = 1,974 negative specimens): Blind Performance Testing 56 tests x 5% x $65/ test - 182 Savings (assuming a 5% testing rate): Labor Costs Savings: 434 tests x 1 hour x 19,556 $45.06/ hour = Total Cost Savings Per 544,070 i Reactor: l Licensees would be required to make slight changes to their fitness-for-duty program policies and procedures if the random testing rate for licensee employees is reduced from 100 percent to 50 percent. It is expected that these revisions would be made concurrently with policy and procedure revisions i made in response to proposed rule amendments proposed in SECY-92-308. Therefore, it is assumed that there would be no additional costs for policy j and procedure revision resulting from the proposed rule change addressed here. i i Staff estimates that the proposed amendment would result in annual savings of approximately $41,000 per reactor conducting offsite testing, and l l about $44,000 per reactor conducting onsite testing, or $4.9 million annual I savings industrywide. The present value of the proposed rule change assumes j an annual discount rate of five percent and an estimated operating life time i t period of twenty-five years. The present value of the proposed rule change is l 8

l r appr0ximately $607,000 per reactor conducting offsite testing and $651,000 per i reactor conducting onsite testing. The industrywide savings have a-present ~ value of approximately $72.5 million. i i t 3.3 IMPACT ON OTHER REQUIREMENTS j t This proposed rule change is not expected to have an impact on other rule requirements. The NRC is currently proposing to modify the FFD rule { (SECY-92-308). t ) I i l l i .t .I t [ r f f i i f 9 f i i . ~,

4.0 DECISION RATIONALE The purpose of the proposed rule change is to lower the 100 percent annual random for licensee employees to 50 percent. The proposed action is recommended in order to establish a more cost-effective and less burdensome testing frequency for licensees while continuing to ensure effective detection and deterrence provided by random unannounced testing of the workforce. As discussed in Section 2, alternatives to the proposed rule were considered. Staff found that the potential cost savings justify the result of fewer violations being detected, since there would continue to be sufficient [ deterrence provided by random testing if the rate was lowered from 100 percent to 50 percent. l i i i t b 10

o 1 ENCLOSURE C DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER I. j ) l I 1 )

.~ i DRAFT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER 1 i

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its Fitness-for-Duty Rule [10 CFR Part 26, which was published in the Federal Reaister on June 7, i 1989 (54 FR 24468)] to permit licensees to randomly test their employees at a i rate equal to 50 percent and maintain the 100 pcrcent random testing rate for contractors and vendors. i r Enclosed for your information is a copy of the proposed -ule as approved by i i the Commission far publication in the Federal Reaister for public comment. i t Sincerely, J Dennis K. Rathbun, Director l' Office of Congressional Affairs t i t s f I i i E l I f f l J r i

t ( ADDRESSEES *: I The Honorable , Chairman Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation [ Committee on Environment and Public Works l United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 cc: Senator The Honorable , Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment l Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs I United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 i cc: Representative The Honorable , Chairman i Subcommittee on Energy and Power Committee on Energy and Commerce United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 cc: Representative The Honorable , Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 i cc: Representative 1 The Honorable , Chairman Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 cc: Senator j

• Updated names and committees pending i

1 1 I I I ( i t

i -l 1 ENCLOSURE D i t i F e t l i i i DRAFT PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT i 1 ? k 9 5 f'? i -. i f l } [ -i r -1 I l '[

NRC PROPOSES AMENDMENTS TO FITNESS-FOR-DUTY RULE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is proposing to amend its Fitness-For-Duty rule which requires licensees to randomly test their employees for substance abuse. The present requirement calls for random testing at an annual rate of l 100 percent of a licensee's work force. As proposed, licensees would be permitted to reduce the annual rate to 50 percent for licensee employees but maintain a 100 percent rate for contractor and vendor employees. In addition, the Commission is inviting specific comments as to whether positions critical i to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant should be excluded from the l proposed reduction in the random testing rate. l The proposed action is based on the Commission's review of the experiences gained from its Fitness-For-Duty rule since it first became effective in 1989, including the fact that the rate of substance abuse detected as a result of the NRC-mandated program has been low--about 0.25 percent for power reactor licensee employees over the two years. Written comments on the proposed amendment to Part 26 of the 4 Commission's regulations should be received by (date). They should be 4 i i addressed to the Secretary of the Commission, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch. j i ) 1}}