ML20058P413
| ML20058P413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/21/1993 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | Taylor J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| FRN-58FR15810, FRN-58FR15884, FRN-59FR502, REF-10CFR9.7 AE38-2, AE38-2-002, AE38-2-2, M931221B, NUDOCS 9312270119 | |
| Download: ML20058P413 (8) | |
Text
i I
/p D" "' C w,'
)
t c,
UNITED STATES 1
[j*),,,
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
2 / 'g kl W ASHINGT ON,0 C. 20555 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE l
t $' %d g g REFER TO:
M931221B j
December 21, 1993 OFFICE OF THE l
SECRETARY MEMORANDUM FOR; James M.
Taylor Executive Director for Ope ations FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secretard Y
SUBJECT:
STAFF REQUIREMENTS - AFF(RNATION/ DISCUSSION AND VOTE, 11:30 A.M.,
TUES03Y, DECEMBER 21, 1993, COMMISSIONERS' CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE (
I.
SECY-93-302 - Modifict.tions to Fitness-for-Duty Procram Reauirements Concernila the Random Druc Testina Rate The Commission, by a 4-0 vote, approved an amendment to its fitness-for-duty regulations which permits licensees to reduce the random testing rate for all persons covered by 10 CFR Part 26 to an annual rate equal to 50 percent.
The FRN should be:
- 1) revised to conform with the attached pages, 2) reviewed by the Rules Review and Directives Branch, i
ADM, for conformity with the requirement of the Federal Register, and 3) returned for signature and publication.
(EDO)
(SECY Suspense:
12/30/93)
Attachments:
As stated i
cc:
The Chairman Commissioner Rogers l
Commissioner Remick Commissioner de Planque i
Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail)
DR - Advance CS - P1-24 l
2200bi l
l 9312270119 931221 PDR 10CFR g D,,,', e l
PT9.7 PDR s7 l
1
1 other program elements, and the extent to which tested employees have been successful in subverting the testing process and avoiding detection.
i The NRC does not have sufficient information about these or other factors that may influence testing results to be able to determine that the decreasing positive rates reported by licensees are an unqualified indication of FFD program effectiveness. Nonetheless, the Comission is gratified to observe Ne decreas q yos a h ve ra te s the y &
ontinuing downward trenjinlicenseeemployees'positiverandomtest results during the past three years.
The recently published NUREG/CR-5758, Volume 3, ' Fitness for Duty in the Nuclear Power Industry: Annual Summary of Program Performance Reports," indicates that licensee employees' positive random testing rate in 1%7
- M yJtLpercent as compared to 0.28 percent in he hivs 1990 and 0.22 percent in 1991.
w Theredas been-a corresponding downward trendj decreas im ir. thypos'itive rates for random testing of contractor and vendor personnel, viz., O g petcent in 1990, 0.55 percent in 1991, and 0.45 percent in 1992.
e In making its decision, the Commission has considered these testing results along with the apparent continuing strength of the other elements of most licensees' FFD programs, the reduced invasion of employees' privacy interests, and the potential for cost savings.
In light of this industry experience and of these beneficial effects, the Commission has concluded that it is reasonable at this time to lower the random testing rate for licensee employees and contractor and vendor personnel to 50 percent.
The response to Coment 4 discusses the Commission's reasons for allowing reduction in the random testing rate for contractor and vendor personnel.
2.
Coment.
The random testing rate should be reduced to less than 50 percent.
1 l l
t I
i i
testing rates as positive testing results declined would likely d scourage licensees from adopting lower screening cutoff levels and taking measures to detect attempts by users to avoid detection.
Lastly, a performance-based aaproach would require the collection an l
analysis of performance data to provide the bases for adjustments to th f
Such data is not currently collected by the licensees or f
ranoom testing rate.
Previous efforts known to the NRC staff to identify and analyze the the NRC.
f j
many candidate performance indicators for measuring the effectiveness o rancom testing have been inconclusive, primarily because of the numerous
)
Furthermore, assuming that the proper perfomance indicators can variables.
be developed, it would appear that the collection and analysis of data to i
support a performance-based approach would add a considerable admj burden to both licensees and the NRC.
Il For all these reasons and until further experience is gained that would j l
support a performance-based approach, t,he Commission declines to a 1
4 i
approach to setting the random testing rate.
3 The reduction in the random testing rate should be 4.
Comment.
applied to all workers.
2 Four of the 30 commenters on this issue - three unions 100-percent
- supported the Commission's proposal that licensees maintain the Their reasons random testing rate for contractor and vendor employees.
included a concern for lack of commitment by contractor employees to for the higher j
maintaining the industry's high drug-free standard and the need l
One of testing rate to provide continued deterrence for contractor emp oyees.
j
-. ~
J u
the three unions recommended that long-term contractors should have the same i
j lower random testing rate as that of licensee employees because test results i
l of long-term contractors and licensee employees have been almost ident i
/
There were several issues consistently mentioned by those 26 comenters l
for contractor ano who opposed maintaining the 100-percent random testing rate l
1 l
There was a general concern for unnecessary inconsistencies
?
l vendor employees.
Consnenters recomended that in random testing rates between Federal agencies.
i f
the NRC program be kept as consistent as possible with programs in other i
i These include the 00T programs Federally regulated safety-related industries.
that currently require contractors and vendors to be randomly tested at a l
l 1
50-percent rate.
Various licensees cited the testing results from 1990 and 1991 which, in i
their opinion, create no statistically sound rationale for testing contractor and vendor employees at a rate different from that of licensee employees.
They argued that, while the contractor / vendor positive testing rate has been i
twice that of licensee employees, it is still low enough to make unnecessary i
i the expenditure of the resources necessary to maintain two separate random 1
]
1 l
testing pools.
Various commenters noted that contractors and vendors are subject to the
)
identical access authorization and other FFD program requirements as are
]
These stringent licensee employees, including behavioral chervation.
requirements, in their view, obviate the need to keep the contractor / vendor f
Some also noted that the deterrent value of random rate at 100 percent.
random testing is in the act of testing itself and not in what many consider 4
Some commenters warned that keeping contractors to be a high rate of testing.
l and vendors at 100 percent could be construed as discriminatory against thi,
1 4
y - -
m..,.,.
l i
employees and may be perceived as punitive rather than as a corre Two licensees also cited a study of the detection effectiveness of measure.
for Outy in the nine random testing rates published in NUREG/CR-5784, " Fitness f
A Review of the first Year of Program Performance and Nuclear Power Industry:
0 t testing an Update of the Technical Issues," which indicates that a 10-percen rate is only a little more effective than a 50-percent rate for detecting occasional drug users.
Or e qb m 'n au % c. nu.M 3 acc Sta h m. cu 67s p.6ea %,y NRC Respense h
LM a"r.lowmad kend -) -
Although there is a difference between the positive results of random l
testing of licensee employees and those of contractor and vendor emp oy
+he. yos,twe. radom ks% cck af 6& groqs ha bem \\es
. a.'. L w i..c.d;r
- tir.3, as stated
- r.
- r
- 1 d w ? M +- H f th:
1
-th: n tub ile, the contractor / vendor random 4
"!L.,.
in the response to Comment I above.
licensee testing positive rates continue to be,about twice the rate for in g
j employees and statistical analysis of th'e data shows that the differenc is not explained f
proportion between the contractors' and licensees' employees k
in the rates are within statistical fluctuations (therefore, differences f
f statistically significant), the Comission agrees that the absolute numb a
low.
Qi positive test results of all categories of nuclear power workers are Therefore. the Comissionjagrees with those comenters who contend
(
testing results during the past three years do not justify making a distinction between these groups insofar as the random testing rate i w,:
I permit its licensees to lower the random testing rate to 50 fyncerned and However, the Commission l' '
percent for all persons covered by 10 CFR Part 26. v-r i y
w-
ffectiveness and will continue to monitor licensee program performance and e will make program adjustments as necessary, in response to the coments regarding the study of the detection effectiveness of nine random testing rates published in NUREG/CR-5784, th Comission notes that the study explicitly dealt with only the hypothetical It did not address their r
detection effectiveness of those alternatives.
While it may be that the effectiveness of relative deterrence effectiveness.
ld be a 100-percent random testing rate for deterring occasional drug users cou slightly higher than that of a 50-percent rate, the Comission nonetheles believes that a 50-percent random testing rate will provide sufficient j
deterrence to drug and alcohol abuse by contractor and vendor employees.
With respect to commenters' concerns about unnecessary inconsistencies in random testing rates between Federal agencies, the Comission continues to g
d believe that the random test rate for employees in the nuclear power indust need not be similar to the rates applied to employees in all, or even most, 2
Not all Federal other Federal agencies or Federally mai1 dated programs.
agencies have identical safety concerns or responsibilities.
There should be no difference in the random testing rate 5.
Comment.
for certain positions critical to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant.
Seventeen commenters responded to the Comission's question as to I
l whether certain positions critical to the safe operation of a nuc ear power plant, such as licensed reactor operators, should be excluded from any All these comenters recomended reduction of the random testing rate.
Two licensees stated that treating people in against such differentiation. 1
i i
l f
i positions critical to safety differently from other employees could hav f
l
~
negative effect on the morale, self-image, and motivation of this group o I Another stated that all plant i
highly trained and dedicated specialists.
Therefore, a reduction in the employees are critical to safe operation.
The potential for added random testing rate should apply to all employees.
I industry was record-keeping requirements creating unnecessary burdens for the I
l i
In the opinion of one another reason for not making this distinction.
industry-wide program perfomance data do not support i
)
comenter, the 1990-1992 h
testing people in positions critical to safety at a different rate than t at I
4 i
Finally, one licensee cited potential l
applied to other licensee employees.
l problems getting union agreement to testing this classification of em i
i at a higher rate than other licensee personnel subject to the FFD rule.
4 l
1 NRC Response i
The essence and unanimity of these comments -- that licensed operators and other employees in positions critical to the safe operation of a nucl
~
i ting rate power plant should not be excluded from a reduction of the random tes 1
)
These particular members of the nuclear power
-- is not surprising.
industry's workforce have collectively demonstrated their dedication t j
i f
As at least one consnenter noted, the and efficient plant operations.
industry's program performance data for the first three years of oper i
ii d
not support differentiating between people in safety-critical pos t ons an
]
The other licensee employees insofar as the random testing rate is conce f
1992 program performance data, for example, show that eighteen of 1
industry's approximately 5,000 licensed operators tested positive fo
, 1
... ~ _,.,.
alconal or otherwise violated the licensee's FFD policy; twelve of these were a result of random testing.
When comparing these results to the 461 positive random tests administered to the industry workforce, resuits out of 156,730 the difference in proportion between the licensed operators and the industry workforce is within statistical fluctuations, and the difference in the l
y q.3% -EWhile the NRC expects
)()
positive rates see not statistically dFfr=t, licensees to continue to take action to drive this number of positives down l
even further, this record does not merit testing people in these positions at The a rate different from that applied to other licensee employees.
Comission, therefore, concurs with the comenters' recomenoation that certain positions critical to the safe operation of a nuclear power plant, such as licensed reactor operators, should not be excluded frem a reduction of the random testing rate.
Random testing is expensive and produces false positives.
6.
Comment.
Furthermore, chronic users are able to avoid detection.
Two commenters, a power plant worker and a union, arguea against the usefulness of continued random testing. One of these comenters stated that random testing produces false positives.
These cost the industry large amounts of money in settlements and damage the public's perception of As additional support for this position, this comenter licensees' f airness.
detection warned that chronic drug abusers are particularly adept at escaping The other comenter from random testing by subverting the testing process.
recommended that random testing be eliminated because it is not effective in identifying workers who are impaired at the time urine samples are collected. _
_