ML20045D733

Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Mods to fitness-for-duty Program Requirements.Recommends That NRC re-evaluate Proposed Testing Frequency Due to Random Testing Rate of 50% Sufficient to Provide Continued Detection Effectiveness

ML20045D733
Person / Time
Site:	Point Beach
Issue date:	06/13/1993
From:	Link B WISCONSIN ELECTRIC POWER CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
CON-NRC-93-073, CON-NRC-93-73, FRN-58FR15810, RULE-PR-26 58FR15810-00007, 58FR15810-7, VPNPD-93-114, NUDOCS 9306300004
Download: ML20045D733 (4)

Text

.

16 D Wisconsin w.4VFK!iVio) 3fC Electnc PONER COMPANY j 231 W Mcngon. Po Sa 2046. Mawookee. wi 53201-2046

'C]

t } ;~ O  ? .r *'

(414)221-2345 VPNPD-93-114 NRC 07 3 June 13, 1993 The Secretary of the Commission U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Washington, DC 20555 Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Gentlemen:

PROPOSED RULEMAKING FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAM WISCONSIN' ELECTRIC POWER CO.

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT. UNITS 1 & 2 The purpose of this letter is-to provide our comments regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, " Modifications to Fitness for Duty Program Requirements," which appeared in the Federal Register,.

Volume 58, Number 55, Wednesday - March 24, 1993.

Wisconsin Electric (WE) opposes the dual' random testing rate system consisting of a 50% rate for the licensee employees and a 100% rate ~

for contractor and vendor employees as proposed in the notice.

There are several reasons for our position: ,

1) No statistical justification exists for the difference. As reported in the Federal Register Notice, after'two years of

~

testing, 99.75% of licensee employee random. tests and 99.44%

of contractor random tests were negative. Based on the identified difference of only .31% between the two rates, there is no basis for a random testing rate for. contractors that is two times as high as that for licensee employees.

2) WE would save thousands of dollars under a uniform reduced random testing rate of 50%. Maintaining the rate at 100% for contractors alone would yield'no additional benefit for the continued cost.

9306300004 930613 PDR PR ,

26 58FR15810 PDR, A subsxfaqafHlevnsa Dwg Cogwation ' l

The Secretary of the Commission June 13, 1993 Page 2

3) There is already significant deterrent and de 7ction value in the pre-access testing program, especially f' conjunction with the Access Authorization programs implementc2 under 10 CFR 73.56. WE believes that many workers who are users of controlled substances decline employment opportunities in the nuclear field because of the stiff entrance requirements:

background investigation, psychological evaluation, criminal history check and drug and alcohol t.asting.

A review of the studies done by Battelle Human Affairs Research Centers (BHARC) as reported in NUREG/CR-5784 " Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry" finds after the first year of program data, "The licensee fitness-for-duty testing program data indicate that, relative to other industries, the prevalence of illicit drug and alcohol use may be much lower among nuclear power plant personnel," (NUREG/CR-5784, Paragraph 3.2.1.2, page 40). The data for the second year of the program indicated even better performance.

Appendix C of the same document, examined the detection effectiveness of nine alternative random testing rates against three different user profiles: continuous drug users, occasional users (twice per year) of short duration drugs and occasional users (twice per year) of long duration drugs.

With respect to continuous drug users, BHARC reported, "It should be noted that the data presented in Table C.1 indicate that the majority of continuous users will have been eliminated after two years under the 100% Standard Approach. Because licensecs will

-have been testing on a random basis for at least two years prior to any change in testing rate that the Commission may consider, we would expect that all continuous users (except for a relatively few coming into the workforce or becoming continuous users after the first two years of the program) will have been detected before the testing rates are changed," (NUREG/CR-5784, Paragraph 3.1, page C-9).

With respect to occasional users (twice per year) of long duration drugs in a hypothetical standard population of 3000, Table C.2 shows after two years that while the 100% standard testing approach identifies a few more users than the 50% standard testing approach, 6 compared to 3, the difference in reduction is low relative to the number of tests performed. After even five years of testing, the difference in reduction, 13 compared to 7, is low relative to the number of tests performed.

~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _

The Secretary of the Commission June 13, 1993 Page 3 With respect to occasional users (twice per year) of short duration drugs BHARC reported, " Table C.3 shows that all testing approaches perform relatively poorly for this distribution. Of the initial expected 158 users in Year 0, between 137 and 154 - or between 87 percent and 98 percent - would be expected to remain undetected at the end of Year 5," (NUREG-5784, Paragraph 3.3, page C-9).

BFARC also studied the effects of increasing frequency of use among the occasional users of both long and short duration drugs, comparing them against the 100% standard and 50% standard testing rates, the rates at issue in this Proposed Rulemaking. The finding was, "Although frequency of use affects the start values substantially (the estimates of the size of the population using drugs based on a 0.3 percent positive test rate), there is not a substantial difference in the reduction in the number of drug users in the population between a 100% random testing rate or a 50%

random testing rate over a five-year period for either short duration or long duration drugs," (NUREG/CR-5784, Paragraph 3.4, page C-12). In other words by the end of 1994, nearly the same number of occasional users would remain in the population if the initial testing rate under 10 CFR Part 26 had been 50% rather than 100%. WE suggests that it is now appropriate to reduce the rate to a more reasonable level.

Quoting again from the BHARC study, "Also, since continuous users are effectively identified using any of the random testing rates, and since most new users should be screened out using pre-access tests, very few continuous users will remain in the population by 1993. Thus, the users who licensee testing programs will be attempting to identify will mainly be occasional users. It is also likely that occasional users may begin to gravitate toward short duration drugs, since the short window of detectability makes these users more difficult to detect using random testing." and

" Alternately, a finding that the current user distribution is largely occasional users could argue for stressing assistance, education or deterrence elements of a fitness-for-duty program to reduce the impetus for drug use," (NUREG/CR-5784, Paragraph 4.1, page C-15).

WE recommends that the NRC re-evaluate the proposed testing frequency, because a random testing rate of 50% is sufficient to provide continued detection effectiveness and maintain a credible deterrent effect.

The Secretary of the commission June 13, 1993 Page 4 If, following implementation of the revised testing frequency, the NRC finds that specific licensee programs are identifying more poritive test results than the industry average, there should be adcitional research conducted explaining the differences. Those licensees should then be encouraged to address these differences through improved Employee Assistance Programs, education or other deterrence elements of their fitness-for-duty programs in order to reduce the impetus for drug use. To maintain the random testing rate for contractors at a 100% level will penalize Wisconsin Electric and other licensees whose programs have achieved positive random test rates lower than the industry average.

Sincerely, x / h /l -

Bob Link ~

Vice President Nuclear Power cc: NRC Resident Inspector NRC Regional Administrator MFB/pek

- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - - _ - - - _ - - - - -