ML20035A129

Request for OMB Review & Supporting Statement Re 10CFR26, Fitness for Duty Programs. Estimated Respondent Burden Is 25,485 H

ML20035A129
Person / Time
Issue date:	03/16/1993
From:	Cranford G NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM)
To:
References
OMB-3150-0146, OMB-3150-146, NUDOCS 9303240116
Download: ML20035A129 (27)

Text

.

.)-

,. w.g.. n. ~..~

3 R e q u e s t f or 0 M BJavieg _ / m.-. ___.

m p;:

• 1 As m. os ne+c e cornpteting forrr. Dc v use tr e srne ir t2 Send tr.ree top ei of t as fo< n.. tr.e mae e ic t.-+ *e. nea ar :

t e: en w an Eaecst ve Otcet 322M rever, end er';ved vo-caperwor+-in'ee ecp'es c.? the suppo tsng s' ate ne t is.

y ; c.+ n w Eecacton Act A m o:' evestens m Pa t t. If this reques: $ f o+ rev4ew uncer E O Ofice o* Inforrnation anc Peguato3 A+f s,

22. creem Part !! and sign the regfato<, ce t:+cate t+ trm Othce of Management and Bucge' ecser' < 'y ap ova' oncer the Pape wo'k Rer.urtie-Act 3nc 5 Crp At enter. Docket Ub ary. Room 220; 3P:

se: i. LO r.p.ete Part W and sp the pape wc k terMcaSt -

Was"gic^ DC 2050a VR s i...-Complete This Part for All Requests.

. e " ? " ' ". ? N h{'f 95y VI hUIf'3J O*i'CF ff 'k tf'i'D* 8 #e ~ ', ef *

. k[e"-C 6 fC4 p

i r

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 3

1.

5 0

+

t..-

e. m.,..o : - te r 3,r e c mt - s, verg wve.ee ie.e pwe - o: e-Loren Bus 301 1504-2944 i

r i

w.e-m u e:te e,e,.y r

10 CFR Part 26: Fitness for Duty Programs

__.,v.ec

, n seo i

s mur :..v. w t ea m e e cc a m

. a 4

2201(o) 42 1

: ie=erz zwan w s=

ee w, c m: r?

e Ere vuw<

t.te.

ven

.._ +cs

' E. vs.;s 'e.es c c gr r

. a p.e+ ne: p

xxe_1,t, o

ne t T

t

- APT h --Complete This Part Onh if the ftecuestis for OMB Revier Under becutive Order 12291 n._ -

~

r

.~,~.

~

- n~

,,,e a..

~... -,,. -,. - -..

$ 25$!! "21 { '

$lbf ? Of Of s tIOp *Ti!

[y yr g

-. ~.-

~ wn n

e _

c m.

f "Vs e*'C g 3

2 _. '

' - ' r LD' r

~

= - w.n, -

. _ ~

^

'PC

.._r-

.--m.

-d..

-g.,a a.meme--

-ie-..we---+.

..-we emm

.m

~.em,.m..-

,-m _o_.~,~

w-egeu.

.m$.--ye.

..e

• ew..

ii*e-e

.u.

pg m

-~

w_,

.,_m..--

, - - -- * -.-.e..

i*t i

• P r.. d!

(

/

6' E'.

4 __ 4 2 (C_' I U _L$ b'1..

.. __. _ n c _ '_^

..C 4 r : n c +,ae m u, sun,n m,0..s Ctf r ** i +,,

t _

~,,r e -

e

.4

+

.*.y

~-...-go.,.,.,a,.

=

-A.~-

. i-e#SJ r

i 23001,8 i;;o r

^

- 9303240116 930316.

h, U w r.:: a r.

PDR ORG EUSOMB PDR 3

g s

.~ n. -

v

~

btM ifi.rt

• a W1$ $

he

v g99 yy3 (pgqqw%g yvn PART181.1 iThis Part Only N the Request is for Approval of a Collection of information Under the Paperwork Reduction Act rnd 5 CFR 1320.

13. Abstract-Desente neees, uses and affected public in 50 words or less

" Drug Testing, Fitness-for-Duty" The proposed rule would permit licensees authorized to construct or operate a nuclear power plant to reduce.the random drug testing rate of licensee employees for drugs and alcohol to 50% but5 maintain the 100% drug testing rate for contractor and vendor

[

employees.

,,fy I

14. T pe of eformation conecton(check dnfyone) l y

Information collections not containedin rules I C Reguar submiss on 2 C Eme+gency suomson teetf,carsonat* ached)

Information collections contained in rules 3 U Erstmg regulaten (no change proposed) 6 Fmal or e tenm fmal witacut ormr NPRM

7. Enter cate of expected or actual receral 4 3 Notice of proposec ru6emaking(tsPRM)

A C RegWar submissen Register publicaton at this stag /93 e ci rutemaung 5 C Final, NPRM was previously puDushed B C Emergency submisser (cert:fication attached)

(month, day. fear): 03/10 s

15. Type of renew requesteo (check ovy one) 1 C New conecten 4 U Remstatement of a previously approved coliection for whict appro6al i

2 h Rev' son of a Cur *eritly approved Collection 3 C Extension of the expiraton cate of a current:y approved conection 5 C Erstmg conection in use without an OMB controt number w'thout ar'y Change *r' the substance of m the method of coHect!O't

16. Agency :eport form number (s)(mctuce stancard/optenal form numberts))

\\ 22. Purpose of m1ormatson conecten (check as many as apply)

{

U *pphcaten for benefits Not applicable 2 C Program evaluation

17. Annual reportmg or disclosure burcen

• number rounded 3 C Generalpurpose statistics 1 Number of respondents 4 3 Regulatoryorcomphance 2 NumDer of responses per respercert.

606.24*!

5 O Proparn planning or management

+

3 Total annual responses (hne 1 fees one 2) 49,106 l

6 C Research 4

4 Hours per response

.14164 7 C Audit S Total hours (4ne 3 fees one e) 6.957

'i

18. Annual recorcheeping Dureen

23. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting (chece a# that apply) 01 1 @ Recordkeeping 1 Number of recordkeepers 314.62 g,portin, 2 Annual hours per recordkeeper.

3 Total recordkeeping hours (hne 1 times kne 2) 25,485 2 0 onoccasion 4 Recordkeepmg retent:on pered

3. 5. Life yea's 3 0 weekiy

19. Total annual burden 4 C Monthly OA*

A 5

Quarterty 1 Requested (hne 17 5 plus kne 16-3).

32,442 6 0 semi-annuany 2 in current OMB mventory 3 Dif4erence (hne 1 tess one2) 0 7 0 Armuany i

Esplanation of dttference 8 0 Bennnally 4 Program change 9 0 Other(oesenbe):

5 Adlustment.

20. Current (most recent) OMB control number or comment number

24. Respondents

• obhgaten to comply (check the strongest obhgation that apphes) 3150-0146 4

1 O voiuntary

21. Requested expiration cate 3/31/93

"%MSD, 2 O Required to obtain or retain. a benefit Y

F" 3 O Mandatory

25. Are the responoents pnmanty.

egancies or institutions or is the pnma y purpose of the cotiecten related to Federal education programs? O ves G No

26. Does the agene use sampling toggleettespondents or does the agency recommend or prescribe the use of sampling or statistical anaiysis

. O ves E No by responcents T.

27. Regulatoguthonty forg mformation conecten,.

CFR

or FR

, or,Other (specify);

Paperwork Certification in submrtting this request for CMB approvel, the agency head. the senior official cr an authorned representative, certifes that the requirements of 5 CFR 1320 the Priv:cy Act, statistical standards or cirectives, and any other appl 6 cable information pokcy directives have been compted with.

Scncture of program officias Date A

e_

Signature f ge cy nea. t-

- aor 3 ctat or an autno 2ectrepresentatwe Date EiWf3 erald F.

nford, ignate Senior Official for IRM r

v O GPO : 1564 0 - 413-776

~

SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR PROPOSED RULE.

"10 CFR PART 26: MODIFICATION TO THE RAND 0M DRUG TESTING RATE FOR LICENSEE EMPLOYEES" (OMB Clearance No. 3150-0146)

DESCRIPTION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION The Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmission is proposing to amend 10 CFR Part 26,

" Fitness-for-Duty Programs," to permit licensees authorized to construct or operate a nuclear power plant pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 to reduce the random testing rate of licensee employees for drugs and alcohol to 50 percent but maintain the 100 percent random testing rate for contractor and vendor employees.

The reduction in the number of random tests will reduce the recordkeeping and internal reporting requirements associated with the collection and testing of urine specimens contained in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 26. These requirements include the reporting of test results by the certified laboratory.

A.

JUSTIFICATION 1.

Need for the Collection of Information Licensees must create specified records, such as chain-of-custody 1

forms, to properly manage the testing program, assure accurate and reliable results, protect the rights of those being tested, and have evidence of program violations that require the imposition of sanctions.

2.

Aaency Use of Information Other than small changes in the numbers which constitute the data provided the NRC under 10 CFR 26.71(d) and the number of reports made under 10 CFR 26.73, there is no change in information provided to the NRC, which is used to determine if there are problems requiring timely action by the NRC staff, to monitor compliance, and to perform empirical evaluations of this evolving discipline in support of any future rulemaking consideration.

r 3.

Reduction of Burden Throuah Information Technoloav There are no legal obstacles to reducing the burden associated with thi~s information collection.

Licensees are encouraged to use modern information technologies to collect, analyze, and store the information required under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 25.

4.

Duplication With Other Collection of Information The collection of information required by 10 CFR Part 26 does not duplicate any other requirements for collection of information.

t 1

)

t

i r

9 5.

Effort To Use Similar Information There is no similar information available to the NRC.

6.

Effort To Reduce Small Business Burden The information collection required does not affect any small business.

1 7.

Consecuences of less Frecuent Collection The proposed amendment to 10 CFR Part 26 affects only the number of random tests administered to licensee employees.

It does not affect i

the types of records and internal reports that must be generated in conjunction with the collection and testing of each urine specimen.

Less frequent creation of records or generation of reports could invalidate the testing process.

8.

Circumstances Which Justifv Variations From OMB Guidelines This proposed rule would not impose requirements that vary from OMB guidelines.

9.

Consultation Outside the NRC The NRC is seeking public comment on the proposed rule. The Nuclear l

Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) proposed a reduction in i

the random testing rate.

10. Confidentiality of Information t,

The licensee is required to maintain a system of files and procedures for the protection of the personal information under Section 26.29(a).

In addition, personal and sensitive information will not be reported to the NRC by the licensee.

11. Sensitive Ouestions Each licensee is required to collect personal information to comply with the Part 26 fitness-for-duty requirements. This information is necessary to ensure that personnel are not under the influence of i

any: substance and are not mentally or physically impaired. However, Section 26.29(a) requires that licensees maintain a system of files and' procedures for the protection of the personal information collected from facility personnel.

12. Estimate of the Cost to the Federal Government The reduction in the random drug testing rate will not result in any significant cost reduction or increase for the Federal government.

i r

j

+

?

f

13. Estimate of Industry Burden and Costs i

a.

The burden of information collection and reporting is described below.

l t

Licensees have reported a total of approximately 275,000 tests of all types in 1990 and approximately 263,000 in 1991.

i Approximately 100,000 of these tests each year are random tests f

of licensee employees and 50,000 are random tests of contractors and vendors. A 50 percent reduction in the random testing rate of licensee employees, as permitted by the proposed amendment, would reduce the number of tests by approximately 50,000 per year.

The reporting of test results by the certified laboratory including validation reviews and the creation of collection records such as the chain-of-custody forms and the permanent record book, are estimated to take 13 i

minutes per specimen..These information collection requirements are contained in Appendix A to Part 26.

l The total burden reduction for industry is estimated to be 10,833 hours0.00964 days <br />0.231 hours <br />0.00138 weeks <br />3.169565e-4 months <br /> (50,000 x 13 minutes). An average of 146 hours0.00169 days <br />0.0406 hours <br />2.414021e-4 weeks <br />5.5553e-5 months <br /> of i

burden reduction is estimated per site (10,833 + 74).

The number of reports by the certified laboratories will i

actually be less than the number of specimens collected because j

of onsite testing at approximately one-third of the sites. At those sites, the licensees would generate the record'of a negative test; no appreciable savings in reporting and 4

recordkeeping would accrue.

{

Licensees currently have fitness-for-duty programs in place that adhere to 10 CFR Part 26.

These programs include written i

policies and procedures and contract provisions which establish t

fitness-for-duty agreements between the licensee and contractor; other than minor edits to accommodate the reduced random testing rate, no changes are anticipated to those documents.

b.

Source of Burden Data and Method for Estimating Burden Burden estimates are based, in part, upon discussions with nuclear utility employees and on estimates of HRC personnel l

' familiar with those types of records and reports.

l 14.

Reasons for Chance in Burden The NRC proposes to permit licensees to reduce the random testing rate i

for licensee employees.

15.

Publication for Statistical Use The NRC has published information concerning program performance in 1

NUREG/CR-5758, " Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Ir.dustry - Annual l

Summary of Program Performance Reports," Volumes 1 and 2.

t' B.

COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS Statistical methods are not required in the 10 CFR Part 26 information collection provisions.

h s

. f v

?

i f

e-,1

?

I i

t

=

b

+

t i

i

[7590-01]

i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 26 RIN 3150-AE36 Modificatioas to Fitness-For-Duty i

Program Requirements f

AGENCY:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i ACTION:

Proposed rule.

8

SUMMARY

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposes to amend its t

regulations to modify current Fitness-for-Duty Program (FFO) 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 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.

DATE: The comment period expires (insert date 90 days from date of publication in the Federal Register). Comments received after this date will be considered if it. is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to assure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.

4 ADDRESSES: Mail comments to:

The Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccimission, Washington, DC 20555, ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch.

Deliver comments to: One White Flint North,11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland between 7:30 am and 4:15 pm on Federal workdays.

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.

Copies of NUREG/CR-5758 (Volumes 1 and 2) and NUREG/CR-5784 may be r

purchased from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 1

Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available from the National Technical Information Service, 5282 Port Royal Road, I

Springfield, VA 22161. A copy is available for inspection and/or copying for a fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loren L. Bush, Jr., Reactor Safeguards Branch, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone:

(301) 504-2944.

l !

i i

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The NRC is proposing to amend its regulations governing " Fitness-for-Duty Programs," as part of its continuing effort to improve its regulations.

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 i

maintain the 100 percent random testing rate for contractors and vendors.

During the FFD rulemaking process, the NRC had specifically invited the public to comment on the rates of random testing (53 FR 36795 at 36796; September 22, 1988).

Public comments strongly opposed a proposed 300 percent rate; the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) and most licensees 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 Commission indicated that it would consider reducing testing rates after several years if it obtained information that experience in the industry with the existing rate had been positive (54 FR 24468 at 24474; June 7, 1989). On November 7, 1991, the Commission directed the staff to report on work that has been done on the deterrent effect of different testing rates with recommendations of the applicability of the work to the nuclear industry. !

=

t f

SECY-92-271 informed the Commission that no research exists that directly i

addresses the issue of whether 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 i

prepare a change to 10 CFR Part 26 thae would permit licensees to randomly

~

t test their employees at a rate equal to 50 percent.

Discussion

{

f 4

i The purpose of random testing was discussed in the Federal Register in l

the Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking published on September 22, 1988 (53 FR 36795 at 36810). An extract of that discussion follows:

i "The purpose of random (unannounced) testing is to provide

.l reasonable assurance that employees are fit for duty by identifying current drug users and by deterring drug users l

from further use or potential users from initial use. The frequency with which an individual is tested is relevant i

to both the identification and deterrence goals of the drug testing program. Generally, the more frequent the i

testing, the greater the deterrent effect and the better l

d the detection capabilities. However, very frequent l

testing may result in unacceptable economic or social costs. Although there is no research upon which the 1

testing frequency may be based, it seems reasonable to assume that:

L A

=

5 4

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 actual or perceived probability of detection.

i The actual probability of detection is related to the type of drug, dose, frequency of use, rate of metabolism and excretion from the body, and the frequency of testing.

The perceived probability of detection is related to the frequency of testing, the " publicity" given positive l

findings and sanctions imposed, and the abuser.'s knowledge of the rate of metabolism and actual probability of detection."

The NRC recognizes that not all workers are deterred and that random 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.

The vast majority of workers do not abuse substances because of any of several reasons, usually concerns for health. Random testing does 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 deterrent effect.

Random testing would eventually detect these people.

An unknown percentage of workers are, or could be tempted to be, occasional users and may be able to abstain 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.

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 both detection and deterrence of substance abuse while minimizing monetary and social costs (e.g., adverse impacts on employee morale).

To maximize 5

detection, other factors remaining constant, it is assumed that more testing will result in more detection.

In maximizing deterrence, random testing rates have been influenced by assumptions that the probability of being selected for testing would have a. deterrent effect and that the higher the testing rate the greater the deterrent effect (although the incremental deterrent effect would i

likely diminish as test rates increase). These assumptions are based on both

'ntuition 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 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 4

testing rates that vary from 4 percent to 200 percent.

Perceptions of risk are believed to play a large role in deterring substance abuse.

For example, from studies of drunk driving and deterrence i

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 j

individual's perceptions of the risk of being tested and the risk of drug use being detected are not based on rational calculations of probabilities alone.

Individuals tend to overestimate the likelihood of low probability events (being selected for testing) and tend to incorporate into their decisionmaking the information that is most easily recalled.

i

' i

t 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 applied compared with the gratification derived from the illicit behavior.

Several conclusions may be drawn from review of the available literature:

(1) The deterrent effect of random drug and alcohol testing programs may l

not be sensitive to incremental adjustments in random test rates. While random testing remains critical in deterring drug abuse, it is only one of the forces acting to deter drug use. Other important factors include the elements I

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 rates and procedures, there will be a greater deterrent effect when the risks of drug abuse--including the probability of detection--are well understood than when they are not.

i (3) Some users will remain undeterred.

Based on the 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 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, j

are important to provide additional assurances to detect and remove chronic l

drug abusers from the workforce. However, a higher random testing rate would more rapidly detect these undeterred users (see Appendix C to NUREG/CR-5784). :

1

1 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 i

rates, suggesting that a substantial number of those testing positive for l

I drugs are not deterred (Osborn & Sokolov, 1990; Stoloff, 1985).

i The NRC considered several alternatives in determining the appropriate 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 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 experiment would have to run for several years to allow for delayed effects f

caused by adjusted testing rates and to obtain a sufficient number of test j

l results. The design of the study and the analysis of the results would have i

taken an additional year. The NRC has decided not to conduct such a study j

because:

(1) the relatively long period of time required to collect and I

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 data from two test groups in the small absolute number of expected positive i

tests.

l L

The NRC considered conducting an attitudinal study which would attempt to show worker attitudes toward, and their understanding of, random testing.

It was hoped that this study would provide a better understanding of how ttyis l

particular component of the FFD program deters substance abuse and would help I ;

t

'I l

determine whether the perceived deterrent effect varies as the rate of random

)

testing varies. The NRC has decided not to conduct this study because:

j (i) the appreciable time that would be required to design and administer the survey and obtain OMB approval would delay the Commission's action on the r

issue, (ii) the study would tap worker attitudes rather than their behavior, l

and (iii) the results of the survey, by themselves, would not provide a solid basis for changes in the random testing rate.

i The NRC also considered awaiting and evaluating the results of the i

Federal Railroad Administration's test program (56 FR 22905; May 17,1991) i which is now expected to be completed in late 1993. The NRC has decided not I

to await the results of this study because several factors may limit the application of the study to the nuclear industry:

i (i)

The railroad industry has fewer units (i.e., there are fewer carriers l

than there are utilities) and more employees per unit than the nucleae i

power industry; i

(ii) The flexibility provided in Part 26 regarding cutoff levels, sanctions, t

and so forth suggests a potential for substantial variability of the i

deterrent effects within the nuclear power industry; l

(iii) A rail line's employees are located across the country and, thus, are l

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,

i l

located within a single geographic region, with one prevailing set of local drug-use patterns; and i

i (iv) The recently reported rate of substance abuse detected through random testing in the railroad industry is quadruple that in the nuclear power industry (approximately 1 percent as against 0.25 percent for power reactor licensee employees for the first 2 years).

i

[

Taking into account the uncertainties involved and the low rate of I

positive tests, the NRC has concluded that lowering the random testing rate l

from 100 percent to 50 percent would cause little, if any, decrease in the 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 j

increase.

However, experiences with random testing gained since publication of the rule have shown contractor and vendor employees testing positive at a rate appraximately double that for licensee employees.

Because of the higher

[

rate of positive tests for contractor and vendor employees, the NRC is not proposing, at this time, to lower the rate for that population.

See chart.

[lNSERTCHART]

t In conclusion, the NRC believes that the fitness-for-duty program can be

[

i revised to permit licensees to lower the random testing rate for licensee

[

4 employees without significant impact on the overall effectiveness of the

}

program. Therefore, the Commission is proposing that 5 26.24(a)(2) be 6

modified to permit licensees to randomly test their employees at an annual t

rate equal to at least 50 percent. This would not preclude licensees from i

RANDOM TESTING 1990 1291 2-Year Totals 2-Year

1. Tests /# Positive

1. Tests /# Positive

1. 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%

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%**

i i

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

t 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 9

1

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 experience, advances in technology, or other considerations to ensure that the rule is achieving the general performance objectives set forth in 10 CFR 26.10.

Assuming that the deterrent effect of the 50 percent random testing rate were to be about the same as that for a 100 percent rate, the proposed rule 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 this potential reduction in individuals being detected, the NRC is specifical interested in comments as to whether certain positions critical to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant, such as licensed reactor operators, should be excluded from any reduction of the random testing rate.

Bibliography Durbin, N., Moore, C., Grant, T., Fleming, T., Hunt, P., Martin, R.,

Murphy, S., Hauth, J., Wilson, R., Bittner, A., Bramwell, A., Macaulay, 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..

1 i

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

-j Evaluation Data, Volume II. NIDA Research Monograph No. 100.

Rockville, MD:

National Institute on Drug Abuse, 25-43.

i e

Stoloff, P.H. (1985). The Effectiveness of Urinalysis as a Deterrent to Drug Use, p.11, Washington, DC: Department of the Navy.

l I

Environmental Impact: Categorical Exclusion i

The NRC has determine that this proposed rule is the type of action

-l described in categorical exclusion 10 CFR 51.22(c)(2). Therefore, neith r an environmental impact. statement nor an environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.

f

[

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement This proposed rule amends information collection 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.

i Since the proposed rule would reduce the random drug testing rate for licensee employees from 100 percent to 50 percent, public reporting and e

recordkeeping burden for the collection of information is expected to be

(

) !

l

5 reduced. The resulting reduction in burden is estimated to average 146 hours0.00169 days <br />0.0406 hours <br />2.414021e-4 weeks <br />5.5553e-5 months <br /> i

.per site, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing i

data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

Send comments regarding the

-i estimated burden reduction or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for further reducing reporting burden, to l

i the Information and Records Management Branch (MNBB-7714), U.S. Nuclear t

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and to the Desk Officer, Office t

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NE0B-3019, (3150-0146), Office of 1

i Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.

j Regulatory Analysis

{

+

t The Commission has prepared a draft regulatory analysi. vn this proposed t

rule. The analysis examines the benefits, cost savings, and costs of the alternatives considered by the Commission. The draft analysis is available j

for a fee at the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC. Single copies may be obtained by writing to the U.S. Nuclear j

Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Single copies of the analysis f

may be obtained from Loren L. Bush, Jr., Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

I The Commission requests public comment on the draft regulatory analysis.

l Comments on the draft analysis may be submitted to the NRC as indicated under the ADDRESSES heading.

l h

i i

?

i l

r Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification j

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 i

activities associated with the possession or transportation of Category I 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.

Backfit Analysis i

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 l

)

stringent safety requirements on 10 CFR Part 50 licensees.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 26 l

l Alcohol: abuse, Alcohol testing, Appeals, Chemical testing, Drug abuse, l

Drug testing, Employee assistance programs, Fitness for duty, Management J

actions, Nuclear power reactors, Protection of information, Reporting and t

recordkeeping requirements, Sanctions.

l i 1

F For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended, and 5 U.S.C. 553, the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendment to 10 CFR Part 26.

1 PART 26 - FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAMS 1.

The authority citation for Part 26 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

Secs. 53, 81, 103, 104, 107, 161, 68 Stat. 930, 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 s 26.24, paragraph (a)(2) is revised to read as follows:

9 26.24 Chemical Testing.

(a) * *

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

administered on a nominal weekly frequency and at various times during the t,

r b

h 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.

Random j

testing of licensee employees must be conducted at an annual rate equal to at least 50 percent of that workforce.

l 3

i t

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of

, 1993.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

i Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary of the Commission.

r f

i l

l v

1 5

i t

[ l

m

[7590-01]

l U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements f

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review AGENCY:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) i ACTION:

Notice of the OMB review of information collection.

6

{

SUMMARY

The NRC has recently submitted to the OMB for review the following proposal for the collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

I i

1.

Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision 2.

The title of the information collection:

Proposed Rule, i

"10 CFR Part 26: Modification to the Random Drug Testing Rate for Licensee Employees" I

3.

.The form number if applicable:

Not applicable i

l 4

4.

How often the collection is required: On occasion S.

Who will be required to report: Nuclear power plant licensees i

f i

i f

I

6.

An estimate of the number of reports annually: A reduction of l

50,000 drug tests and associated records

[

f i

7.

An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to

[

i complete the requirement:

10,833 hours0.00964 days <br />0.231 hours <br />0.00138 weeks <br />3.169565e-4 months <br /> of burden reduction (an average of 146 hours0.00169 days <br />0.0406 hours <br />2.414021e-4 weeks <br />5.5553e-5 months <br /> of burden reduction per site) j

.i 8.

An indication of whether Section 3504(h), Pub. L.96-511 applies: Applicable 9.

Abstract:

10 CFR Part 26 of NRC's regulations, " Fitness-for-Duty Programs," requires licensees authorized to construct or operate a nuclear power plant pursuant to Part 50 to implement fitness-for-duty programs to assure that personnel are not

'[

under the influence of any substance or mentally or physically I

impaired, to retain certain records associated with the i

management of these programs, and to provide reports concerning significant events. A proposed amendment to this regulation would permit licensees to reduce the random testing rate of

^

r licensee employees for drugs and alcohol to 50 percent but

. maintain the 100 percent random testing rate for contractor and

.i

. vendor employees.

Copies of the submittal may be inspected or obtained for a fee from.

the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level),

Washington, DC 20555.

[

I

l 1

Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer:

Ronald Minsk Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (3150-0146)

NE08-3019 Office of Management and Budget Washington, DC 20503 f

Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3084.

The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 492-8132.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, thisM& day o

, 1993.

F the Nuclear Regulatory Commission i

/erald F G

. Cranford Designated Senior Official for Information Resources Management 3

r I

l l