ML20058G350

Advises That NRC Opposes Title Xxx in Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990 Re Drug Testing Provisions

ML20058G350
Person / Time
Issue date:	10/25/1990
From:	Rogers K NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:	Bliley T, Brooks J, Deconcini D, Dingell J, Fish H, Hatch O, Erin Kennedy, Leahy P, Lent N, Madigan E, Markey E, Metzenbaum H, Scheuer J, Simpson A, Swift A, Thurmond S, Waxman H, Whittaker R, Wyden R HOUSE OF REP., SENATE
References
CCS, NUDOCS 9011130094
Download: ML20058G350 (40)

Text

_

o

['

UNITED STATES l'$

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r

3

i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 :

• h'

/

October 25, 1990 4

o

'+,

~

CHAIRMAN The Honorable Alan K. Simpson United States Senate Washington, D. C.

20510

Dear Senator.Simpson:

1 I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's)'

opposition'to Title XyX in the Comprehensive Crime Control =Act of 1990, H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of P,epresentatives.- Title XXX of: that bill, which would1 amend Title V of the Public Health' Service Act by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a' program for certification of-laboratories engaged:in drug testing. While the Comission. supports stringent quality control methods.for drug testing in the Alcohol,. Drug.

Abuse, and Mental' Health Administration (ADAMHA) guidelines, some_of the-provisions of Title XXX are inconsistent with the rule (10 CFR Part 26)-

that the Comission has promulgated forEdrug testing of. employees at comercial nuclear power plants. The Comission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of the HRC-mandated comercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program. ' A strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe-operation of comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary-concern is with the provision in. the. legislation that all.

. private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in laboratories certified under the Department of Health and Human Service's

~

- ( HHS ) Ma nda to ry ' Gir ide liiie~ 's "foFFeae ra l" Wor kp liice' O ru g - Te s t i ng P rog rams (ADAMHA guidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule has'several-provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer be able to retain.

For example, there :is. confusion over to whom test results can be reported.- Section 552(b)'and;the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclearL power plant' licensees 4 from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator. or supervisory official has tested positive for-drug use.

Without such notification, I

the NRC could not ensure that the. licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect-the' public health and safety; The same restrictions would:also preclude licensees from making suitacle inquiries of prior employers to determine whetheria plant worker has previously used drugs. Many workers'in the nuclear industry are contract

' personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities.

Such personnel may work at a' number of power plantsj during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for drug use at.one facility, the utility wruld be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive drug test results.

9Al. TEK! AL SGAN.'

9011130094 9010203 PDR COMMS NRCC

. o /p ('f'.

CORRESPONDENCE PDC CW

- ~

v

=-

.v

. ' t.

1 '

The NRC regulations permit-utilities-to test for additional drugs beyon'd:

the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for_ determining the presence of' drugs without prior HHS approval.- Because of. the health.and safety, implications of drug use by

{

workers at nuclear power plants, the Comission believes that utilities should be able to test for additional drugs and set lower thresholds than -

those prescribed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant._

l To date, HHS has not granted approval to include additional drugs or.

lower thresholds for use in testing Federa1' employees. The NRC

_l understands that HHSLis currently reviewing its policiesLin these-areas.

l However, Section 551(a)(2): mandates "to the maximum extent possible

i compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Comission discretion in rulemaking for the special public. health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

The NRC regulations-also require testing for alcohol, similar to the approach enployed in the airline industry. The ADAMHA< guidelines do not address testing for alcohol consumption. -Any. legislation enacted needs to make clear that the absence of-HHS ' guidelines to address alcohol does not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees'to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions, initial screening: tests on-site provided -that.

initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified

-I lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening-would' be precluded.

underSection-552(a).

For the licensees-that conduct such. screening tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nucit.ar power plant for--performing necessary maintenance and repairs because. urine _ samples will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial-and confirmatory analysis.

We'therefore ask i. hat any Eug testing provisions in tU legislation be carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory: process in mind and that any-legislation enacted afford the NRC!the flexibility to.

continue its-current program under 10 CFR Part 26,:which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can_ be achieved either through explicit provisions in the legislation accomodating our:needs or through a provision directing HHS to modify its ADAMHA guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its prcgram in its current fonn.,

It is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be' applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other' Federal agencies._ Such programs may also warrant special consideration by:the Congress before the

' legislation is enacted.

Sincerely, h

O Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman j

l l

..s 4

l CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENCE SYSTEM DOCUMENT PR2PARATIOM CMECKLIST This checklist is to be submitted-with each' document-(or group of Qs/As) sent. for entering into the CCS.

1.

amIEr DESCRIPTION or DOCUMENT (S) ~ Srs./g liden feuaL t&hme Corn @sYdbbne"e#7

'sYaNde N/M a.

TYr5 or DoCUMzNT 3.

DOCUMENT. CONTROL Sensitive.(NRC Only);

Non-Sensitiv d

4.

CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTE3 and. SUSCOMNITTERS (if applicable);

• • y 7, Roy' Congressional Counittee 4 j

subcommittee y]

5

• • '\\

5.

SUMECT CODES (4)

(b)

(e) i 6.

SOURCE or DOCUMENTS i

(a) 5520 (document name-

/

j (b)

Scan.

(c)

Attachments (4)

Rakey (e).

Other 7.

SYSTEM LOG DATES (a)

// /< M U Date OCA.sont document to CCS.

/

(b)

Date CCS receives document (e)

Date returned to OCA for additional'information (d)

Date resubmitted by_OCA to CCS e

-(e)

Date entered into CCS by (f)

Date OCA notified that document is in CCS 8.

COMMENTS

$ on

/4&P 0 /L C e 's h%h

'=m Qt Q fd~I n k

/

0 hChr'CS M PG

1.

' Addressees tinited States Senate Joseph R. Biden, J'.r Edward M. Kennedy Howard Metzenbaum-i Dennis DeConcini Patrick J. Leahy

.i Strom Thurmond 1

Orrin G. Hatch Alan K. Simpson' i

United States House of.

~

Representatives Robert Whittaker Thomas J. Bliley Edward R.'Madigan Noman F. Lent Ron Wyden Al Swift Edward J. Markey

. Henry A. Waxman James H. Scheuer John D. Dingell 1

Jack Brooks Hamilton Fish 1

'l l

i w

yq

.I i

s

. /p uego l

I' '

'g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

o

{'

E WASHWGTON, D. C. 20666 a

)

\\

.o#

October 25,-1990 g

J CHAIRMAN

?,

The Honorab?e Edward M. Kennedy--

United States senate a

Washington, D. C.

20510

Dear Senator Kennedy:

I am writing to express the.Nuclea'r Regulatory Commission's-(NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990, H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of Representatives). Title XXX of_that bill, which would amend. Title V-of'the Public Health > Service Act.by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes atprogram for certification of-laboratories engaged.in drug' testing. While the Comission su pports' stringent quality control methods-for drug testi.ng in the Alco1ol, Drug-Abuse, and Mental' Health Administration 4 (ADAMHA)-guidelines, some of the'

provisions of Title XXX are inconsistent'with the rule (10 CFP, Part 26) l that the Comission has. promulgated

for. drug ' testing of employees; at -

commercial nuclear power plants. The(Commission is-concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could= undermine the-effectiveness of,the NRC-mandated commercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program. LA.

3" strong fitness-for-duty program is; essential 1for.' safe operation of.

J commercial nuclear power plants.

Our prinary concern-is with the provision-_in the, legislation: that-all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be~done'in:

laboratories certified under the Department of Health'and, Human Service's

~ (HHS')'liandatory Guidelin'es' for Federsl Workplace.Dfug Testing' Programs '

(ADAMHAguidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule has several arovisions that go beyond those guidelines' that the NRC'would no longer i

ae able to retain. For example, there is confusion over to,whom test-results can be reported. Section 552(b)? and the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear. power plant licensees from-informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator. or supervisory.

official has tested positive for drug use. Without such notification,-

the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has'taken' appropriate = action' that.might be necessary to protect.the public, health and safety;.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable.

j inquiries of prior employers to determine' whether aLplant worker hast 1

previously used drugs. Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract l

personnel hired during plant outages to perform. safety-related functions or activities.

Such personnel may work at a: number-of power plants during; the course of a year.. If;a worker were to test-positive-for drug-use at one facility, the utility would be' precluded from advising future j

employers of that individual's prior positive drug test :results. -

RJi.LTEXT ASCH SCAN

.g

F

! The NRC regulations permit utilities'to test forl additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS_ guidelines and to: establish lower:

thresholds for determining the-presence of drugs without prior HHS __

approval.

Because of the health and safety, implications _ of drug!use by 1

workers at' nuclear power plants, the Commission believes that utilities should be able.to test for additional drugs;and set. lower thresholds than j

those. prescribed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant, To date, HHS has not grantediapproval to include additional drugs or j

lower thresholds for 'use in testing' Federal employees. - The NRC.

3 understands that HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas, a

However, Section-551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible"..

compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which.could eliminate Commission' discretion in rulemaking for the.special'public' health and safety.

_I considerations for the r,uclear industry.

A The NRC regulations also require testing for-alcohol',csimilar-to-the-approach employed in the airline industry.' The' ADAMHA guidelinesido not.

address testing for1 alcohol consumption. -- Any legislation enacted needs.

to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol <does not preclude testing for alcohol-consumption.

l Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to: conduct, under stringent.

quality control provisions, initial; screening, tests on -site provided thatt initial positive tests are confirmed by'GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified-1 lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would bel precluded.

,j underSection552(a).

For-the licensees that conduct such screening tests,.

the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for performing necessary maintenance and repairs because. urine samples'will have'to be j

sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial-and confirmatory analysis.

We' therefor ~e ask that any drug;t'esting provisionslin thealegislation be

~

4 carefully analyzed.with the: special needs of HRC's-regulatory process in mind'and that any legislation enacted' afford the NRC.the: flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR'Part 26, which we believe has been effective and fair..The desirable f.lexibility can-be achieved:either.

through' explicit-provisions in the~legislationLaccommodating our needs or-through a provision directing HHS to modify its' ADAMHA guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its program in-its current fonn.

. l It is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be applicable.

to drug ~ testing programs mandated by other~ Federal agencies. -Such programs may also. warrant special consideration by the Congress before the y

legislation is enacted, a

Sincerely, Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman i

__._.____._m_____

Jl0

,g UNITED STATES =

' [,

t y,

-g

- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION :

,c WASHINGTON, D. C 20S66.

t

-October 25. 1990 CHAIRMAN The. Honorable Howard MetzenbaumL United States Senate i

Washington, D. C.

20510;

Dear Senator'Metzenbaum:

1 am writingst'o expressithe Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX:in the Comprehensive Crime Control: Act: of-1990, H.R. 5269, as passed byL the' House -of. Representatives.

Title ~XXX;of that bill, which would amend Title V;ofithe1Public' Health Service Act'by:

i adding Sections-551-557, prescribes a program for certification;of ~

l laboratories-engaged:in drug testing.= While the Commission supports i

stringent quality control methods;for drug testing in the Alcohol, Drugs a

Abuse,andMentalHealthAdministration(ADAMHA); guidelines,someofthe provisions of Title ~XXX.are-inconsistent ivith the rule (10 CFR Part:26) that the Commission hasl promulgated for drug testing of_ employees atL

')

commercial nuclear-power plants. The CommissionLis con _cerned that these provisions,11f enacted; could ' undermine ~ the effectiveness of the NRC-mandated-commercial: nuclear industry fitness-for-duty; program. A strong fitness-for-duty program is' essential-for safe operation:of commercial nuclear power plants.

1 Our primary concern is with the provision in the legislation that all l

private-sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in laboratories certified under the Department of Health and Human Service's

'"(HHS')"Handatorf Guidelines ~forTede"ral WorkplaYe' Drug" Testing ~ Programs (ADAMHAguidelines). The NRC' fitness-for-duty rule 1has: several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that. the' NRC ' ould:no longer -

w be able to retain. For example, there is confusion over to whom test results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use of.the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear-power plant licensees from-informing the NRC that' a licensed control room operator or; supervisory-official has tested positive for drug'use. Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure-that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public-health and safety.

The same restrictions would also precludellicensees from making. suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a: plant worker has

~

previously used orugs. Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities. Such personnel may work at a nunter of power plants-during tne course of a year.

If 6 worker were to test positive for drug i

use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive drug test 'results.

FULLTEXT AS0ll SCAN C

l;

- 2.-

The NRC regulations permit utilities:to test for additional' drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines.and to establish lower thresholds for determining the presence of drugs without prior HHS:

i approval. Because _of the healti and safety implications of drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the Commission believes that utilities:

4 should be able to test for additional drugs and'stt lower thresholds than l

those prescribed by'HHS guidelines when local; circumstances.so warrant..

To date, HHS has not granted approval to include additional drugs-or-lower thresho,ds for use in testing Federal employees.

The NRC understands thit HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas.

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible" I

compliance witl the ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Commission discretion in rulemaking for the specia1L public health and safety consideratio,is for-tne. nuclear -industry.

The NRC regulations also reouire testing for alcohol, similar-to the; 1

approach employed in the airline industry. The ADAMHA guidelines do-not-address testing.for alcohol consumption. Any legislation enacted needs to make clear that the absence of HHS_ guidelines-.to address alcohol does-not preclude testing for_ alcohol. consumption; 1

Finally, NRC regulations permitxlicensees.to conduct, under stringent.

i

. quality control, provisions, initial screening tests on site provided'that.

L initial-positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS' analysis:in an HHS-certified 1

lab; _ As a practical matter, this.on-site screening would be precluded _

~

under Section 552(a). -For the licensees that conduct.such ' screening tests, the Section 552 -preclusion may result in delays -in granting unescorted '

access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for: performing-i necessary maintenance and repairs because urine samples-will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory ' analysis..

j W'e therefore ask that any drug Itesting provisionsin the" legislation be carefully analyzed with the;special-needs of HRC's regulatory process.in mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26, which we believe has 1

been' effective and fair. The. desirable flexibility can be 1 achieved either-i through; explicit provisions-in the-legislation accommodating our needs or through a provision directing. HHS to modify its' ADAMHA-guidelinesito, permit

?

the NRC to continue its program in its current form.

It is possible that.some of the concerns we have raised may be applicable-to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies. -Such programs i

may also warrant special; consideration by the Congressubefore the:

i legislation is enacted.

q Sincerely,

\\

b

\\

Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman

-l

" %g,

,og UNITED STATES

- {gT

.,q g.-

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.g_

October 25,'1990 CHAlflMAN The Honorable Dennis DeConcini United States Senate Washington, D. C.

20510 o

Dear Senator DeConcini:

I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's)-

opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime _ Control Act of 1990, H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of-Representatives. Title'XXX of that bill, which would amend Title'V of the Public Health. Service Act by addi_ng Sections ~551-557, prescribes a program for1 certification of laboratories engaged in crug testing. Phile.the Connission supports-stringent quality control methods for drug testing in the Alcohol, Drug.

Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) guidelines, some of the provisions of Title XXX are inconsistent with the: rule (10 CFR Part 26) that the'Comission has promulgated for drug testing of employees at -

commercial nuclear power plants. LThe Commission.is. concerned that;these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectivenessLof the NRC-mandated comercial nuclear' industry fitness-for-duty program.

A strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of 1

connercial n; clear power' plants.

t Our primary concern is with the provision-in the legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done=in-laboratories certified.under the Department'of Health and Human Service's

'(HHS') Maridatory Guidelines'fof Federal Workplace Drug Testing. Programs (ADAMHAguidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule -has several-provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would'no longer be able to retain.

For-example, there isiconfusion over to whom test' results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use of the ADAHHA.

guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant' licensees from informing the NRC that a licensed control roor operator or supervisory official has tested positive for. drug use. Without such' notification,-

the NRC could not ensure that the' licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The same, restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a plant worker has j

.previously used drugs. Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities. Such personnel may work at a number of' power plants during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for' drug use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive drug test results.

Riu. TEXT AS0ll SCAH f

l h

i l

1 2 --

1 The NRC regulations permit utilities to test for additional drugs (beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for determining.the presence of drugs without prior HHS-1, approval. --Because of the health and safety implications.cf drug use by workers at_ nuclear power plants, the Connission believes that utilities' i

should be able to test for-additional ' drugs;and set lower thresholds than-those prescribed by.HHS_ guidelines when. local circumstances so warrant.

To date, HHS has not granted approval to include additional drugsLor lower thresholds for use in testing Federal: employaer. The~NRC-understands that HHS is currently reviewing its. pol 1cies in these areas.

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the' maximum exteni. possible" -

1 compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could' eliminate Commission discretion in rulemaking for the'special public health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

The NRC regulations also require testing for alcohol, similar;to the, 4

approach employed in the airline industry. The ADAMHA guidelines do~not-address testing for alcohol consumption. 'Any legislation enacted needse to make clear.that the absence of HHS guidelines.to address alcohol does-not preclude testing for alcoho1 consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct, under1 stringent _

quality control provisions,-initial' screening tests on site provided that i

initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis _ in an-HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter,-this on-site screening would be preclud_ed, I

underSection552(a).

For the licensees <that conduct such screening 1 tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in _ delays tin granting unescorted 1

access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for performing..

racessary maintenance and repairs because urine samples:will.have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confimatory analysis.

We therefore ask that any drug tisting provisions Tin the legislation be l

carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory process in l

mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the flexibility to i

continue its current program 'under 10 CFR Part 26,' which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can be achieved.either through explicit ' provisions in the legislation accorimodating our. needs or -

through a provision directing HHS to modify its. ADAMHA guide 11nesL to permit.

the NRC to continue its program in its' current form.

It is possible that some of the concerns we-have raised may be applicable to drug. testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies. Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before_the legislation is enacted.

Sincerely,.

M-l Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman i

i L

.Qh hl)g' $

UNITED STATES '

/

^

{ '

, rj NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20656 o,

%,..../

October 25,-1990 CHAIRMAN l

V The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, c

United States Senate:

d Washington; D.- C.: -20510.

1 a

Dear Senator Leahy:

i 3-a

! am writing to express:the Nuclear-Regulatory Comission's-(NRC's) l opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990 H.R. 5269, as passed by, the House' of Representatives. Title.XXX of that-'

W bill, which would amend Title V-of the Public Health Service Act by aeding Sections 551-557,! prescribes a program for certification of!

l laboratories engaged in drug testing. While the Commission:su) ports stringent quality control. methods for drug testing.in the Alcc101,' Drug i

Abuse, and Mental Health Administration '(ADAMHA): guidelines; some'of the-provisionsLof Title XXX are; inconsistent'with the rule (10LCFR Part 26) that the Commission has promulgated for drug testing ~of employees at..-

l commercial nuclear power plants.

The Comission is concerned that these a

provisions, if enacted,- could:underraine the ' effectiveness of the.-

NRC-mandated commercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program.:- A -

a strong fitness-for.-duty program is: essential for safe; operation ~ of comercial nuclear power plants.

1 i

Our primary concern is with the' provision-in thealegislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be Ldone.. in laboratories certified under the Department of Health and Human-Service's (HHS')" Mandatory'Gdidelines~for Federal ~Workplace DrugiTesting Programs-(ADAMHA guidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty. rule has:several-provisions that go beyond those guidelines that.the NRC.would no' longer be able to retain.

For example, there is" confusion over4to whom test-results can be reported.- Section 552(b)'and the use of<the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant-licensees from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has tested positive for drug'use. JWithout such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The same restrictions.would also preclude: licensees from making suitable inouiries of-prior employers to determine whether. a plant worker has previously used' drugs. itany workers in the nuclear industry are contract -

a personnel hired.during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities. Such personnel may' work at a number of power plants' t

during.the course of a year.

If a worker'were to test positive for drug use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive drug test results.

FULLTEXT ASCll SCAN-f

'b

_m

-2'~

The NRC regulations permit utilities to test for additNnal drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish' lower thresholds for determining the presence of drugs ~without prior =HHS l

approval. Because of the health and: safety implications of' drug use by _

workers at nuclear power plants, the Commission believes that utilities should be able to test for addi+ional drugs and. set lower thresholds than those prescribed by HHS guidelines when local _ circumstances so warrant.-

To date HHS has not granted approval to include. additional drugs ort lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees. The NRC understands that HHS is currently reviewing'.its policies in these areas.

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to:the maximun extent possible" l

compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines,3hich could. eliminate Commission-1 discretion in rulemaking for the special peblic-health _and safety.

J considerations for the nuclear.industr_y.

The NRC regulations also require testing for elcohol, similar to the approach employed in the airline industry. The ADAMHA guidelines do not address : testing for alcohol, consumption. > Any legislation enacted needs to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines-to-address alcohol does l

not preclude testing for_ alcohol consumption.

quality control provisions', initial screening tests _on site provided that

~l Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct, under stringent initial positive tests are' confirmed by GC/MS analysis in_ an HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter. this on-site screening would be precluded underSection552(a).

For the-licensees;that conduct;such screening tests, 3

the Section 552 preclusion may result'in delays in _ granting. unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant:for. performing-necessary maintenance and repairs because urine' samples will have to be-sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory-analysis..

We therefore ask that any' drug testing previsions in the legislation be carefully analyzed with the special needs of, NRC's regulatory process in mind-and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26, which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can.be achieved either through explicit provisions in the. legislation accommodating our needs or through a provision directing HHS to modify its ADAMHA guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its program in its_ current form.

It is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies. Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

3 Sincerely, I

k Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman

h p^ n,y

/[

Io(

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

-r o

'f WASHINGTON, O C,20666

)

.i l

Y+4....+/

October 25i 1990-l CHAIRMAN i

y The Honvable Strom Thurmond United States Senate l

Washington, D. C.

20510 i

Dear Senator Thurmond:

I am writing-to express:the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's):

opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990,n H.R. 5269, as' passed by the House'of. Representatives.

Title XXX of that bill',-which would amend Title V of the Public~ Health Service Act by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing... While the_ Comission su) ports stringent quality control methods for drug testing in the Alco1ol', Drug Abuse, and Hental Health Administration (ADAMHA) guidelines, some of the provisionsofTitleXXXare,inconsistentwiththerule-(10CFRPart-26) that the Comission has promulgated for--drugi testing of employees at t

comercial nuclear. power -p~ 'nts.. The Comission is, concerned 'that these'~

provisions, if enacted, couid undermine the effectiveness of the.

NRC-mandated comercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program.

.A L

strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of ~

comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in the legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological ~ analyses must be=doneiin laboratories certified un_ der the Department;of Health andLHuman Service's (HHS')' Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace DrugiTesting Programs l

(ADAMHA guidelines). The:NRC' fitness-for duty rule has 'several provisions that go beyond those. guidelines:that' the NRC would' no longer l

.be able to retain. For example, there is confusion over-to whom test results can be-reported. Section'552(b) and the use-of the ADAMHA-guidelines would:seem'to. preclude nuclear power plant licensees from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator:or super'visory I

official has tested positive for drug.use. Without.such notification, I

the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action L

that might be necessary to-protect the public health and safety.

\\

l The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from_ making suitable l.

inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a plant worker has previously used drugs. Many-workers in the~ nuclear industry are contract i-personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or' activities. Such-personnel may work at a number of power plants during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for drug use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive' drug test results.

RJLLTEXT ASCll SCAN

4" w'

a I

2.

The NRC legulations permit utilities to test for additional drugs beyond-g the five specified in the_HHS guidelines and to_ establish lower i

thresholds for determining the presence of drugs without prior HHS approval.

Because of the healti and safety implications-of drug-use by.

workers at nuclea'r power plants, the. Commission believes.that utilities 1

should be able to test for additional drugs and' set-lower thresholds than.

those prescribed by HHS guidelines when _ local cir_cumstances'so war _ rant.-

-To date, HHS'has not granted approval to include additional drugs or; lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees. The NRC understands that HHS'is currently reviewing its policies in these: areas.,

i However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible" compliance-with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Commissioni discretion in rulemaking for the special. public health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry'.-

The NRC regulations also require testing for alcohol, similar to the:

approach employed in the airline industry. The ADAMHA guidelires do not address testing for alcohol consumption.L Any legislation enacte-meds to make clear that the absence of-HHS guidelines to. address alec-doei l

not preclude testing for alcoho1' consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct,!under? stringent - _

quality control provisions,. initial-screening tests on1 site _provided'that-initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS_ analysis inLan HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would'be1 precluded-underSection552(a).

For the.-licensees that' conduct such screening tests;-

the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting; unescorted -

access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for performing necessary maintenance and' repairs because urine samples will.have to be a

sent to an off-site laboratory for'both: initial and confirmatory. analysis.

~

We therefore ask that any drug.' testing provisions in thh legislation:be-carefully analyzed with the special needs of HRC's regulatory process in:

1 mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC'the flexibility 'to continue its current program.under 10 CFR Part 26;;which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can be achieved either i

through explicit provisions in the legislation accommodating our needs.or through a provision directing HHS to modify.itstADAMHA guidelines;to permit the NRC.to continue its program:in its current form.

It is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies.

Such programs may also warrant.special consideration by the Congress before the-legislation is enacted.

Sincerely, M

Kenneth C. Rogers h 1

Acting Chairman j

1

.l

_ /[p3 R40

^

g f

UNITED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION =

h

.l wAsHmoTow, o. c. rosos -

f 1

s

/

October 25,t1990 CHAIRMAN

' The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch 1)nited States Senate

- Washington, D. C.

20510

Dear Senator Hatch:

I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Comm'ission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of.1990,.

. H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of Representatives.1 Title XXX of that bill, which would-amend Title V of-the Public Health Service Act by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for certification of laboratories engaged.in drug testing.

While the Commission supports-stringent quality control-methods for drug testin Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) g;in the Alcohol, Drug guidelines, some of the

-provisions of Title XXX are inconsistent'with the-rule-(10 CFR Part'26)

. that the Commission has promulgated for drug testing of: employees'at commercial nuclear power plants. The Commission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of'the' HRC-mandated connercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program.

A:

strong fitness-for-duty program'is essential for safe operatien.of connercial nuclear. power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in; the' legislation'that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in laboratories certified under the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS')^ Mandatory' Guidelines' for' Federal W&kplace" Drug. Testing Programs (ADAMHA guidelines).

The NRC fitness-for-duty ~ rule =has several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would.no longer be able to retain.

For example,1there is confusion over to whom test results can be reported. Section552(b)and guidelines wouM seem to preclude nuclear pow.the use of the ADAMHA er plant licensees from informing the NFC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has tetted positive for drug use.

Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate ; action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensen from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a. plant worker has previously used drugs.

Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities.

Such personnel may work at a-number of power plants during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for drug.

use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive drug test results.

RJLLTEXT 011 SCAN

.y l

The NRC regulations permit util*. ties to test for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines.and to establish lower-thresholds for determining the presence of_ drugs without prior HHS approval. Because of the health and' safety implications of drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the Cossnission-believes that utilities i

should be able to test _ for additional drugs ^ and set : lower thresholds. than those prescribed by HHS guidelines'when local circumstances so warrant.-

To date, HHS has not_ granted-approval to include additional drugs or s

lower thresholds for use 'in testing Federal employees. The NRC l

understands that HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas.

However, SectioniS51(a)(2) mandates "to 'the maximum extent possible" 4

compliance with-the.ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Commission' i

discretion in rulemaking for the_ special public health and. safety-considerations for the nuclear industry.

The NRC regulations also reoutre-testing for alcohole similar to the approach employed in. the airline -industry? _ The ADAMHA guidelines Ldo not address testing-for alcohol consumption. Any legislationtenacted needs to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address. alcohol does not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit _ licensees-to conduct, under -stringent quality control provisions,-initial. screening-tests on sitet provided that initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis,in an HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening'would be precluded 1

underSection552(a). For the111censees that' conduct such screening tests,-

the Section 552 preclusion may result in-delays-in granting unescorted access to sensitive areas of-the nuclear power plant'for performing necessary maintenance and repairs because urine samples will-have to.be sent to an off-site -laboratory for both initial and confirmatory analysis.

e

'We therefore ask that anys drug testing provisions in the legislation be-carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory: process in mind end that any legislation enacted afford the NRC:the flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26, which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can.be achieved either through explicit provisions in the legislation ~ accommodating cur needs or through a provision directing HHS to, modify its ADAMHA1 guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its program in its current form.

It is possible that sone of the concerns we have raised may be applicable to drug testing programs-mandated by other Federal agencies.

Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

Sincerely, AC.Y A

i Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman

..l i

t./U%h t

/

UNITED STATES.

{

%)

.y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

. ;; e >

c WASHINoTON. D C. 20565 -

%J..... #}

r October 25. 1990 CHAlHMAN j.

The lionorable Robert Whitta' er.

k United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.i 20515.

Dear Congressman Whittaker:

I am writing-to express the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's)-

opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990,

]

H.R. 5269,:as passed by the House of Representatives.

Title:

XXX of that?

-l bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act by' adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for certification of laboratories engaged'in drug testing. -While the Commission; supports-stringent quality contro1' methods for drug testing'in the Alcohol, Drug' Abuse, and Mental-Health Administration (ADAMHA). guidelines, some'ofLthe provisions of Title XXX dre inconsistent:with the rule (10 CFR Part 26),

that the Connission ~has proaulgated for drug: testing of, employees att commercial nuclear power plants. The Commission is concerned.that these-provisions, if enacted, cor.ld undermine-the effectiveness' of the-HRC-mandated commercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty. program ~ A strong fitness-for-duty programis essential for safe: operation of commercial nuclear power plants.-

<\\

Our primary concern is with the provision;in the-legislation _ that all-private sector. drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in.

laboratories-certified under the Department of Health and Human Service's t

"(HHS')" Mandatory ~G0'idelines~foFFederal Workplace DruiTesting Programs (ADAMHA guidelines). - The NRC. itness-for-duty. rule.has several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NR; would no longer -

be able to retain.

For example, there is confusion.over to whom test results can~be reported. Section552(b)'and-theuse-ofthe-ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude. nuclear power' plant-licensees.from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has' tested positive for drug use.

Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect:the-public health and safety.

The -same restrictions would also preclu'de licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior employers toLdetermine whether a plant worker has-previously used-drugs..Many w'orkers in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities.

Such personnel may work at a number of power plants during-the course of a year.

If a. worker were to test positive for. drug

~

use at one facility, the utility would be precluded' from = advising future employers of that individual?s. prior positive drug test ~results.

L o

FULLTEXT AScil SCAN

1

• O

.c 1

The ilRC regulations permit utilities to test for. additional! drugs beyond-the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establishxlower thresholds for determining the presence > of drugs without prior HHS approval.

Because of the health and safety: implications of ' drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the~ Comission believes that utilities.

should be able_to: test for additional drugs and set l lower thresholds than those prescribed by.HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant.

To date, HHS has not granted approval lto include additional drugs or-lower thresholds for.'use in testing Federal employees.

The NRC understands that HHS-is currently reviewing its policies,in these areas, i

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to' the niaximum extent possible" i

compliance withithe ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Comission discretion in-rulemaking for the special:public health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

4 The liRC regulations also require testing for alcohol,.similar to the approach employed in the airline industry. The ADAMHA guidelines do_not

- i address testing for alcohol consumption. ' Any legislation-enacted needs-to make-clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to : address alcohol does not preclude testing for alcohol. consumption.

Firially. -NRC regulations permit licensees Lto conduct. under stringent.. _

quality control. provisions,- initial. screening -tests on. site-provided that-initial positive-tests are confirmed by GC/MS' analysis-in1an HHS-certified '

lab. As.a practical matter, this on-site screening would be:precludedi under Section 552(a).

For the licensees'that conduct such screening, tests, the Section 552 preclusion may' result:inL delays in granting unescorted access to sensitive' areas of'the nuclear power. plant for performing-necessary maintenance and repairs:because urine samples will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and. confirmatory analysis.

'We"thereforeaik"thaisiy 3 rug ^' testing provisions in t'he llegislation b'e

- carefully analyzed with the special needs of-.NRC!s' regulatory process in-mind and that_ any legislation enacted afford ~ the NRC the flexibility to

~

1 continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26, which we.believe has been effective and. fair. The desirable flexibility can be achieved either through explicit! provisions in' the legislat_ ion _ accomodating our -needs-or.

through a provision directing HHS:to modify its ADAMHA guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its program in'its current fonn.

it is possible that some of the doncerns we have raised may be applicable 1

- to drug testing programs mandated'by other Federal agencies. _ Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation:is enacted.

Sincerely,.

%A Kenneth C.' Rogers Acting Chairman i

{

1:

~.

}

4 g

' ' p' n a 1

s

{[}

o,

-UNITED STATES

'j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

4<-

yj nAssiwarow, o. c. zosss -

J j[

' October 25, 1990-CHAIRMAN The Honorable Thomas'J. Bliley-United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20510

Dear Congressman Bliley:

I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC!s) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990, 3

H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of= Representatives. Title XXX of_that:

bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health' Service Act by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for=certifici. tion of laboratories engaged in drug testing. While. the Comissir,n supports u

stringent quality centrol methods for drug testing in the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) guidelines, some of the l

provisions of' Title XXX are-inconsistent with the rule (10 CFR Part-26) that the Comission has promulgated for drug testing of employees at comercial nuclear power plants.> The Comission is concerned that these

.j provisions, if enacted, could' undermine the effectivenesstof the NRC-mandated comercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty l program. ' A :

j strong fitness-for-duty program'is essential for safe operation of l

comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the prov~ision in the legislation th'at all private sector drug testing toxicological' analyses.must be done in laboratories certified under-the Department of Health and Human. Service's j

~ ~ ( HHS )'M a nda'to rf'G O~i deTi his ~foF Fe de r5FWo r lip lHe D'ru g Te s t i ng P rog rams

~

(ADAMHA-guidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule _.has'several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer j

be able to retain.

For example, there is confusion over to'whom test results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use,of the ADAMHA.

guidelines would-seem.to preclude nuclear power plantilicensees-from i

informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or.. supervisory official has tested positive for drug use. W'thout such' notification,.

the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees-from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a plant worker has previously used drugs. - Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract-personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities. Such personnel may work at a number of: power plants during the course o? a year.

If a worker were to test positive.for drug use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive drug test results.

Ft)Lt. TEXT AS0lt SCAN 1

g j

1 The NRC regulations permit utilities to test for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HPS guidelines and to establish lower i

thresholds for determining the presence of drugs without prior HHS approval.

Because of the healti and safety implications of drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the Coinnission believes that utilities

~

should be able to test for additional drugs and set lower thresholds than i

i those prescribed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant.

l To date, HHS has not granted approval to include additicaal drugs or lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees.

The NRC understands that HHS is currently reviewing its policies'in these areas, j

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible"

)'

compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Commission discretion in rulemaking for the special public health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

)

i The NRC regulations also require testing for alcohol, similar to the 1

approach employed in the eirline industry. The ADAMHA guidelines do not address testing for alcohol consumption. Any legislation enacted.needs j

to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol does i

not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit. licensees to conduct, under stringent f

quality control provisions, initial screening tests on site provided that l

initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified i

J lab. As a pratical matter, this on-site screening would be precluded underSection552(a). For the licensees that conduct such screening tests, the-Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for performing necessary maintenance and renairs because urine samples will have to be i

sent to an off-site laborator,, for both initial and confirmatory analysis.

We' therefore askihat any drug lesting 'profisions in the legislation be carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulato7 process in mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the fle'xibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26, which we believe has been effective and fair. ' The desirable flexibility can be-achieved either l

.through explicit provisions in the legislation accommodating our needs or

~

through a provision directing HHS to modify its ADAMHA guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its program in its current form.

It is postible that some of the concerns we hate raised may be ap>licable l

to drug testing programs mandated by other Feueral agencies.

Suct programs may also warrant special consideration by i.he Congress before the legislation is enacted.

Sincerely,

%Y Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairi,,an :

i m

.. m

I o

=.

. 9l:

9

./

- UNI CD STATES

{

, r,c \\j NUCLEAR RrE ATORY COMMISSION e

WASHINGTON. D. C. 20656 4

s 25, 1990

%..%.../

October i

CHAIRMAN 2

i The Honorable Noman F. Lent United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C 20515 1

Dear Congressman Lent:

I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990,

)

H.R. 5209, as passed by the House of Representatives.

Title XXX of that a

bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing.

While the Comission supports stringent quality control methods for drug testing in the Alcohol Drug Muse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) guidelinesi some of the

,..ovisions of Title XXX are inconsistent with the rule (10 CFR Part 26) that the Comission has promulgated for drug testing of employees at comercial nuclear power plants. The Comission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of the HRC-mandated commercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program. A strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in the legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in 1aboratories certified under the Department of Health and Human Service's (NHS')' Mandatory Guidelines ~for' Federal Workplace' Drug' Testing Programs (ADAMHAguidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule has several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer be able to retain.

For example, there is confusion over to whom test results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant licensees from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has tested positive for drug use. Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a plant worker has previously used drugs. Many workers in the nuclear' industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities.

Such personnel may work at a number of power plants during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for drug use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive drug test results.

i FUU. TEXT ASCli SCAN

/

~

-2 The NRC regulations permit utilities te test for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for determining the oresence of drugs without prior HHS approval. Because of the healt1 and safety implications of drug use by-workers at nuclear power plants, the Connission believes that utilities should be able to test for additional drugs-and set-lower thresholds than those prescribed b,y HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant.

To date, HHS has not granted approval to include additional drugs or lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees. The NRC understands that HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas.

However,Section551(a)(2) mandates"tothemaximumextentpossible" compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines which could eliminate Commission discretion in rulemaking for the specIa1 public health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

The NRC regulations also require testing for alcohol, similar to the approach employed in the airline industry. The ADAMHA guidelines do not address testing for alcohol consumption. Any legislation enacted needs to nake clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol does not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licenstes to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions, initial screening tests on site provided that initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site, screening would be precluded underSection552(a).

For the licensees that conduct such screening tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for performing necessary maintenance and repairs because urine samples will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory analysis.

We therefore ask that any drug testing provisions in the legislation be carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory process in i

mind and that any legislation enacted afford the.NRC-the flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26~, which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can be achieved either through explicit provisions in the legislation accommodating our needs or through a provision direc, ting HHS to nodify its ADAMHA guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its program in its current fonn.

It is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be ap>11 cable 4

to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies.

Suci programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

Sincerely, l

Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman

~/w*,

\\

UNITED STATES 1

[I.

'i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1 "a /

• 2 WASHINGTON. D, C. 20666 i

t o

\\.'..+ /

October 25, 1990

]

- CHAIRMAN The Honorable Ron Wyden United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20515

Dear Congressman Wyden:

)

I am writing to express the Kuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990 H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of Representatives. Title XXX of that bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a-program for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing. While the Comission supports J

stringent quality control methods for drug testing in the Alcohol, Drug l

Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) guidelines, some of the provisions of Title XXX are inconsistent with-the rule (10 CFR Part 26)'

that the Comission has promulgated for drug testing of employees at commercial nuclear power plants. The Comission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness ~of the-NRC-mandated comercial nuclear industry fitness-fooduty program. A strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in the legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done.in laboratories certified under the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS')"Mandatorf GUideliiie's for' Federal'Workp6ce Drug Testing programs (ADAMHAguidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty. rule has several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer le able to retain.

For example, there is confusion over to whoin test results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant licensees from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory 1

official has tested positive for drug use. Without such notification, i

the NRC could not ensure that the. licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior einployers to determine whether a plant worker has previously used drugs. Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired durinsi plant outages to perform safety-related functions j

or activities. Such personnel may work at a number of power plants -

during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for drug use at one f?cility, the utility would be precluded from advising future emoloyers of that individual's prior positive drug test results.

FMTEXT ASCll SCAN

l t The NRC regulations permit etilities to test-for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHb guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for determining the arcsence of drugs without prior HHS approval. Because of the healti anc~ safety implications of drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the Commission believes that utilities should be able to test for additional drugs and set lower thresholds than those presciibed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant.

To date, HHS has not granted approval to include additional drugs or lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employecc. The NRC undersi.e.ds that HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas.

4 However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible" compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Commission discretion in rulemaking for the special public health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

The NRC regulations also require testing for alcohol, similar to the l

approach employed in the airline industry. The ADAMHA guidelines do not address testing for alcohol consumptior. Any legislation enacted needs to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol does not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions, initial screening tests on site provided that initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would be precluded i

underSection552(a).

For the licensees that conduct such screening tests, tne Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting une:corted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for performing i

necessary maintenance and repairs because urine samp',as will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory analysis.

~

~

We therefore ask that'any drug testing provisions in'th'e' legislation be carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory process in mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the flexibility to continue its current prcgram under 10 CFR Part 26, which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility.can be achieved either through explicit provisions in the legislation accomodating our needs or through a provision directing HHS to modify its ADAMHA guidelines to pennit the NRC to continue its program in its current fom.

It is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies. Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

Sin erely, i

A Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chaiman W

fra, u

UNITED STATES

-f.

i fu ';

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20655,

\\,[ #'

October 25, 1990 CHAIRMAN i

i The Honorable Al Swift 1

United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20515 j

Dear Congressman Swift:

I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory.Comission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control-Act of 1990, H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of Representatives. Title XXX of that bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing. While the Comission supports stringent quality control methods for' drug testing in the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) guidelines, some of the provisions of Title XXX are inconsistent with the-rule (10 CFR Part 26) that the Comission has promulgated for drug testing of employees at commercial nuclear power plants. The Comission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of the NRC-mandated commercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program.

A strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in the. legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in laboratories certified under the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS')" Mandatory' Guidelines ~forTederaT'Workplace Drug Testing Programs (ADAMHA guidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule has several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer be able to retain.

For example, there is confusion over to whom test results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant licensees from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has tested positive for drug use.

Withe"+ suru notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a plant worker has e

previously used drugs. Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities.

Such personnel may work at a number of power plants?

during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for drug use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive drug test results.

FUU.TEU Ascli SCAN

)

s 2

The NRC regulations permit utilities to test for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for determining the presence of drugs without prior HHS approval.

Because of the healti and safety implications of drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the Comission believes that utilities should be able to test for additional drugs and set lower thresholds than those prescribed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant.

To cate, HHS has not granted approval to include additional drugs or lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees. The NRC understands that HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas.

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible" compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines which could eliminate Comission discretion in rulemaking for the specIal public health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

The HRC regulations also require testing for alcohol similar to the approach employed in the airlire industry. The ADAMHA guidelines do not address testing for alcohol consumption.

Any legislation enacted needs to nate clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol does not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions, initial screening tests on site provided that initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would be precluded underSection552(a).

For the licensees that conduct such screening tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for performing necessary maintenance and repeirs because urine samples will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory analysis.

We therefore O k th d any drug testing provisions in the legislation be carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory prece:t in mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26, which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can be achieved either through explicit provisions in the legislation accommodating our needs or through a provision directing HHS to modify its ADAMHA guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its program.in its current form.

It is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies. Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

Sincerely, k

[

Kenneth C. Rogers L

Acting Chairman 4

?w.-

/ "%g.

/

,o, UNITED STATES g'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

J

-t W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20556

\\....+ p October 25, 1990 CHAIRMAP 1ho Honorable Edward R. Madigan United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20515

Dear Congressman Madigan:

I am writing to express the Muclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of.1990, H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of Representatives. Title XXX of that bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act by 4

adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing. While the Comission supports stringent quality control methods for drug testing in the Alcohol, Drug i

Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) guidelines, some of the provisions of Title XXX are inconsistent with the rule (10 CFR Part 26) that the Comission has promulgated for drug testing of employees at comercial nuclear power plants. The Comission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of,thtag NRC-mandated comercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty progrA A l

stiong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of commercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in the legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in laboratories certified under the Department of Health and Human Service's

~(HHS')^Handatorf GQidelineffoFFederal'Workpike Drug Teiting Programs (ADAMHAguidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule has several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer be able to retain.

For example, there is confusion over to whom test i

results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant licensees from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has tested positive for-drug use. Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety, i

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a plant worker has previously used drugs. Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities. Such personnel may work at a number of power plants during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for drug use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive. drug test results.

,l RJU.TEU ASCll SCAN dk

l

,- w The NRC regulations permit utilities to test for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for determining the aresence of drugs without prior HHS approval.

Because of the healti and safety implications of drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the Comission believes that utilities should be able to test for additional drugs and set lower thresholds than those prescribed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant.'

To date HHS has not granted approval to include additional-drugs or s

lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees. The. NRC understands that HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas.

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible" compliance with the Al'AMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Comission-discretion in rulemaking for the special public health and safety.

considerations for the nuclear industry.

The NRC regulations also reouire testing for alcohol, similar to the approach employed in the airline industry.

The ADAMHA guidelines do not address testing for alcohol consumption. Any legislation enacted needs to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol does not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions, initial screening tests on site provided that i

initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis'in an HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would be precluded underSection552(a). For the licensees.that conduct such screening tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted i

access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for perfonning necessary maintenance and repairs because urine samples will have to be 1

sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory analysis.

^We' therefore"ask that any drug' testing provisions in the legislation be l

carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory process in

mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the~ flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26', which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can be achieved either through explicit provisions in the legislation accommodating our needs or through a provision directing HHS to modify its ADAMHA guidelines to pemit the NRC to continue its program in its current fonn.

It is possible that sone of the concerns we have raised may be applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies.

Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

4 Sine rely, M

A Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman I

q

\\

UNITED STATES f,,

g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666

f o\\.'..../

October 25, 1990 CHAIRMAN l

The Honorable Edward J. Markey i

United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20515

Dear Congressman Markey:

I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990 H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of Representatives. Title XXX of that bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing.

While the Comission supports stringent quality control methods for drug testin Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) g in the Alcohol Drug guidelines, some of the provisions.of Title XXX are inconsistent with the rule (10 CFR Part P6) that the Comission has promulgated for drug testing of employees at i

comercial nuclear power plants.

The Commission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of the NRC-mandated comercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program. A strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for' safe operation of comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in the legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in l

laboratories certified under the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS') Mandatory Guidelities' for~ Federal Workp' lace Drug Testing Programs (ADAMHA guidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule has several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer be able to retain.

For example, there is confusion over to whom test results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant licensees from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has tested positive for drug use. Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect'the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether:a plant worker has previously used drugs. Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract L

personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions i

or activities. -Such personnel may work at a number of power plants during the. course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for drug

.use at one 'acility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive drug' test results.

Full. TEXT AS0ll SCAN k'

4 4

2, The NRC regulations permit utilities to test for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for determining the )resence of drugs without prior HHS approval.

Because of the healti and safety implications of drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the Comission believes that utilities should be able to test for additional drugs and set lower thresholds than those prescribed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant.

To date, HHS has not granted approval to include additional drugs or lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees.: The NRC l

understands that HHS is currently reviewing its polic',es in these are::,,

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum a '

' poss%1e" compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could "

te Comission discretion in rulemaking for the special public ':

and safety censiderations for the nuclear industry.

The NRC regulations also require testing for at A.1, similar to the approach employed in the airline industry. The raAMHA guidelines do not address testing for alcohol consumption. Any legislation enacted needs e

to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol does not preclude testing for alcohol consumptinn.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions, initial screening tests on site provided that initial positive teste are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified i

lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would be precluded under Section 552(a).

For the licensees that conduct such screening tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for performing necessary maintenance and repairs because urine samples will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory analysis, i

We herefore as'k that any drug testing provisions in the legislation be carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory process in mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26, which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can be achieved either through explicit provisions in the legislation accomodating'our needs or through a provision directing HHS to modify its ADAMHA guidelines.to permit the NRC to continue its program in.its current fonn.

It is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal' agencies.

Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

S,incerely,.

j Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman i

a e

[musg%,,

UNITED $TATES

! }

f, g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

a W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 s

I

%,...../

October 25, 1990 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Henry A. Waxman United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20515

Dear Congressman Waxman:

I an writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990, H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of Representatives. Title XXX of that bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act by.

adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for certification-of laboratories engaged in drug testing. _ While the Commission su) ports stringent quality control methods for drug testing in the Alco1ol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) guidelines, some of the provisionsofTitleXXXareinconsistentwiththerule(10CFRPart26) that the Comission has promulgated for drug testing.of employees at comercial nuclear power plants. The Consission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of the NRC-mandated commercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program. A l

strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in the legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in laboratories certified under the Department..of_ Health _and_ Human Service's (HHS')'Mahdatory" Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs

~

~

(ADAMHAguidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule has several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer be able to retain.

For example, there is confusion over to whom test results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant licensees from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has tested positive for drug use.

Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate' action that might be necessary to protect' the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a plant worker has previcusly used drugs. Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities. Such personnel may work at a number of power plants -

during the course of a year.

If a.~ worker were to test positive for drug

.use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future i

~

employers of that individual's prior positive drug-test results.

l

- FULLTEXT ASCll SCAN

s

. The NRC reguletions permit utilities to test for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for determining the presence of drugs without prior HHS approval. because of_the health and safety implications of drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the Commission believes that utilities should be able to' test for additional drugs and-set lower thresholds than those prescribed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant.

To date HHS has not granted. approval to include additional drugs or lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees. The NRC understands that HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas.

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible" compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Comission discretion in rulemaking for the special public health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

L The NRC regulations also require testing for alcohol, similar to the approach employed in the airline industry. The ADAMHA guidelines do not address testing for alcohol consumption. Any legislation enactec needs to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcoh)1 does not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions, initial screening tests on site provided that initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would be precluded underSection552(a). For the licensees that conduct such screening tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear-power plant for performing necessary maintenance and repairs because urine samples will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for. both initial and confimatory analysis.

~We'~theFefore ask that any Wug~ testing provisions ' n the legislation be i

carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory process in mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26, which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can be achi3ved either through explicit provisions in the legislation accomodating our needs or through a provision' directing HHS to modify its ADAMHA guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its program in its current fom.

It is-possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies.

Such programs i

may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

j Sin erely, Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman i

^

c.

f N2(p

• */.\\ -

'o UNITED STATES

'g

{[

,E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION n

wash NGTON. D. C. 20665 p!

October 25, 1990 CHAIRMAN j

l The Honorable James H. Scheuer United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

20515

Dear Osngressman Scheuer:

I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990, H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of Representatives. Title XXX of that bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for certification of-laboratories engaged in drug testing.

While.the Comission su pports stringent quality control methods for drug testing in the Alco1ol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) guidelines, some of the provisions of Title XXX are inconsistent with the rule (10 CFR Part 26) that the Comission has promulgated for-drug testing of employees at comercial nuclear power plants.

The Comission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of the-HRC-mandated comercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program. A strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is.with_the.. provision.in.the_ legislation, that all pHvate sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in

~

laboratories certified under the Department of Health and Human Service's (HHS') Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (ADAMHAguidelines). The NRC fitness.for-duty rule has >6nni provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer be able to retain.

For example,- there is confusion over to whom tesi.

results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant licensees from inforraing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has tested positive for drug use. Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary.to protect the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a plant worker has previously used drugs. Many workers-in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities. Such personnel r.sy work at a number of power plants during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for. drug y

use at one facility, the utdlity would be precluded from advising future employers of that individc41's prior positive drug test results.

i

g,

.y t

2 The NRC regulations permit utilities to test.for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines.and to. establish lower threshelds iur datermining the presence of drugs without prior HHS approval. Because of the health and safety implications of drug use by.

workers at nuclear power plants, the Comission believes that utilities should be able to test for additional drugs and set lower thresholds than those prescribed by HHS guidelines when-local circumstances. so warrant.

To date, HHS has not granted approval to include additional drugs or lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees. The NRC understands that HHS is currently reviewing'its policies in these areas.

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible" compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Comission discretion in rulemaking for the special public health and ' safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

The NRC regulations also require testing for alcohol. similar to the approach employed in the airline industry.

The ADAMHA guidelines do not sadress testing for alcohol consumption. Any legislation enacted needs to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol does.

not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions, initial screening tests on site provided that initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would be precluded.

under Section 552(a). For the licensees that' conduct such screening. tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in gianting unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for performirg necessary maintenance and repaf rs because urine samples willehave to be'

~

sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory analysis.

'We therefore ask that any drug testing provisions in the legislatio_n be carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory process in mind and that any legislation enacted afford the-NRC the-flexibility to continue its current program under:10 CFR Part.26, which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can be achieved either through explicit provisions in the legislation ac modating our needs or through a provision directing HHS to modify its A ".MHA guidelines to per' nit the NRC to continue its program in its current form.

It is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies.

Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress befory the legislation is enacted.

Sin erely,

),

Kenneth C. Rogers-Acting Chairman l

l

((

• g %

UNITED STATES g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g

y W ASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

\\..../

October 25 1990 CHAIRMAN The Honorable Jack Brooks United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.

E0515 t

Dear Congressman Brooks:

I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990,.

H.R. 5269, at passed by the House of Representatives.

Title XXX of that i

bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act by adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a program for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing. While the Comission su) ports stringent quality control methods for drug testin Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) g in the Alco1ol Drug guidelines, some of the provisions of Title XXX are inconsistent with the rule (10 CFR Part 26) that the Commission has promulgated for drug testing of employees at commercial nuclear power plants; The Comission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of the HRC-mandated commercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program. A strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in the legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in 1aboratories certified under the Department _of Health _and_ Human Service's (HHS')" Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs

~

(ADAMHA guidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule has several I

provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer be able to retain.

For example, there is confusion over to whom test results can be reported.

Section 552(b)-and the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant licensees from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has tested positive for drug use. Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether.a plant worker has previously used drugs. Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract-l personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities. Such personnel may work at a number of-power plants during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for drug use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future employers of that individual's prior positive drug test results.

l (U1 TEXT ASCI) SMN V

u, l l The NRC regulations permit utilities to test for edditional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for determining the presence of drugs without prior HHS approval.

Because of the health and safety implications of drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the Connission believes that utilities should be able to test for additional drugs and set lower thresholds than those prescribed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant.

To.date, HHS has not granted approval to include additional drugs or lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees.

The NRC understands that HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas.

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible" compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Commission discretion in rulemaking for the special public health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

The NRC regulations also require testing for alcohol, similar to the approach employed in the. airline industry.. The ADAMHA guidelines do not address testing for alcohol consumption. Any legislation enacted needs to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol does not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions. initial screening tests on site provided that initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an NHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would be precluded under Section 552(a). For the licensees that conduct such screening tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for perfoming necessary maintenance and repairs because urine samples will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory analysis.

1

~We therefore'~ask that any drug"t'esting provisions in th'e. Ngislation be

~

carefully analyzed with the special needs of NRC's regulatory process in mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part-26, which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility'can be achieved either through explicit provisions in the legislation accommodating our needs or through a provision directing HHS to modify.its ADAMHA' guidelines _to permit the NRC to continue its program in its current form.

It is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies.

Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

i Sincerely,

%A\\

i Kenneth C Rogers Acting Chairman f'

F

---.w

--y

..w...

y.

p 1t800 UNITED STATES

[ S.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3,,,

e WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555

/

October 25,.1990

....+

CHAIRMAN The Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.

United States House of P,epresentatives Washington, D. C.

20515

Dear Congressman Fish:

I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990,.

H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of Representatives. Title XXX of that bill, which would amend Title V of the Public Health Service Act by_

adding Sections 551-557, prescribes a prograin for certification of laboratories engaged in drug testing. While the Comission supports stringent quality control methods for drug testing in the Alcohol Drug Abuse,andMentalHealthAdministration(ADAMHA) guidelines,some,ofthe provisionc of Title XXX are inconsistent with the rule (10 CFR Part 26) that the Comission has promulgated for drug testing of employees at comercial nuclear power plants.

The Comission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of the NRC-mandated comercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program. A strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of commercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in the legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in-laboratories certified under the Department _of Health.and Human Service's (HHS')~MandatoryEGuidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (ADAMHAguidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule has-several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer be able to retain.

For example, there is confusion over to whom test results can be reported. Section552(b)andtheuseoftheADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant licensees from informing the NRC that a licertid control room operator or supervisory i

official has tested positive for drug use. Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suiteble inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a plant worker has previously used drugs. Many workers in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions or activities. Such personnel may work at a number of power plants during the course of a year. -If a worker were to test positive for drug i

use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising' future employers of that individual's prior _ positive drug test results, pg XT ASCl) SCAN

/

I o o o e e.

% The NRC regulations permit utilities to test for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for determining the 3resence of drugs without prior HHS approval. Because of the healt1 and safety implications of drug use by-workers at nuclear power plants, the Coisnission believes that utilities should be able to test for additional drugs and set lower thresholds than those prescribed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances 50 warrant.

To date, HHS has not granted approval to. include additional drugs or lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees. The NRC understands that HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas.

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible" compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Commission discretion in rulemaking for the special public health and safety considerations for the nuclear industry.

l 4

The NRC regulations also require testing for alcohol, similar to the approach employed in the airline industry.

The ADAMHA guidelines do not eddress testing for alcohol consumption. Any legislation enacted needs to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol does i

not preclude testing for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licensees to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions, initial screening tests on site provided that initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would be precluded underSection552(a).

For the licensees that conduct such screening tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power plant for performing necessary maintenance and repairs because urine samples will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory analysis.

~ We'therefore ask'that'any drug testing provisions in the legislation be I

carefully analyzed with the special needs.of NRC's regulatory process in mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the-flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR Part 26, which we believe has been effective and fair.

The desirable flexibility can be achieved either through explicit provisions.in the legislation accommodating our.needs or through a provision directing HHS to modify its ADAMHA' guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its program in its current form.

1 it is possible that some of the concerns we have raised may be opplicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies. Such programs-may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

i Sincerely, i

i Kenneth C. Rogers l

Acting Chairman l

4

' ['

\\"g

/

UNITED STATES '

4 m

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e

W ASHINGTON, 0. C. 20566 8

o

\\ +'... [

October 25, 1990 CHAIRMAN The Honorable John' D. Dingell United States House of P,epresentatives Washington, D. C.

20515

Dear Congressman Dingell:

I am writing to express the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC's) opposition to Title XXX in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990, H.R. 5269, as passed by the House of Representatives. Title XXX of that bill, which would mend Title V of the public Health Service Act by adding Sections 55. 557, prescribes a program for certification of laboratories engaged in drug. testing. While the Comission supports -

stringent quality control methods for drug testing in the Alcohol Drug.

Abuse,andMentalHealthAdministration(ADAMHA) guidelines,someofthe provisions of Title XXX are inconsistent with the rule (10 CFR Part 26) that the Comission has promulgated for drug testing of employees at comercial nuclear power plants.

The Comission is concerned that these provisions, if enacted, could undermine the effectiveness of the NRC-mandated comercial nuclear industry fitness-for-duty program. A strong fitness-for-duty program is essential for safe operation of comercial nuclear power plants.

Our primary concern is with the provision in the legislation that all private sector drug testing toxicological analyses must be done in 1

laboratories certified under the Department of. Health and Human Service's (HHS')'llandatoryGuidelinesforFederalWorkplaceDrugTestingPrograms (ADAMHA guidelines). The NRC fitness-for-duty rule has several provisions that go beyond those guidelines that the NRC would no longer be able to retain.

For example, there is confusion over to whom test results can be reported. Section 552(b) and the use of the ADAMHA guidelines would seem to preclude nuclear power plant licensees.from informing the NRC that a licensed control room operator or supervisory official has tested positive for drug use. Without such notification, the NRC could not ensure that the licensee has taken appropriate action that might be necessary to protect the public health and safety.

The same restrictions would also preclude licensees from making suitable inquiries of prior employers to determine whether a plant worker has l

previously used drugs. !!any workers in the nuclear industry are contract personnel hired during plant outages to perform safety-related functions j

or activities. Such personnel may work at a number of power plants during the course of a year.

If a worker were to test positive for drug use at one facility, the utility would be precluded from advising future i

employers of that individual's prior positive drug test results..

l FUU. TEXT AScli SC N

o d ;o I

s The NRC regulations permit utilities to test 'for additional drugs beyond the five specified in the HHS guidelines and to establish lower thresholds for determining the presence of drugs without prior HHS approval.

Because of the health and safety implications of drug use by workers at nuclear power plants, the Comission believes that utilities should be able to test for additional drugs and set lower thresholds than those prescribed by HHS guidelines when local circumstances so warrant.

To date, HHS has not granted approval to include additional drugs or lower thresholds for use in testing Federal employees. The NRC understands that HHS is currently reviewing its policies in these areas.-

However, Section 551(a)(2) mandates "to the maximum extent possible" compliance with the ADAMHA guidelines, which could eliminate Commission-discretion in rulemaking for the special public health and safety-considerations for the nuclear industry.

i The M C regulatiuns also reouire testing.for alcohol, similar to the approach employed in the airline industry. The ADAMHA guidelines do not address testing for alcohol consumption. Any legislation enacted needs

)

to make clear that the absence of HHS guidelines to address alcohol does not preclude testing.for alcohol consumption.

Finally, NRC regulations permit licersees to conduct, under stringent quality control provisions, initial screening tests on site provided that initial positive tests are confirmed by GC/MS analysis in an HHS-certified lab. As a practical matter, this on-site screening would.be precluded underSection552(a). For the licensees.that conduct-such screening tests, the Section 552 preclusion may result in delays in granting unescorted i

access to sensitive areas of the nuclear power. plant for performing necessary maintenance and repairs because urine samples will have to be sent to an off-site laboratory for both initial and confirmatory analysis.

We therefore ask that any drug testing provisions in the legislation be j

carefully analyzed with the special needs of HRC's regulatory process in mind and that any legislation enacted afford the NRC the flexibility to continue its current program under 10 CFR part 26, which we believe has been effective and fair. The desirable flexibility can be achieved either through explicit provisions in the legislation accomodating cur needs or through a provision directing HHS to modify its ADAMHA guidelines to permit the NRC to continue its program in its current form.

It is possible that some of the concerns we have' raised may be applicable to drug testing programs mandated by other Federal agencies. Such programs may also warrant special consideration by the Congress before the legislation is enacted.

4 Sincerely, Kenneth C. Rogers Acting Chairman I