ML20116G915
| ML20116G915 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 08/02/1996 |
| From: | Jain S DUQUESNE LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Hoyle J NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-61FR21105, RULE-PR-26 61FR21105-00021, 61FR21105-21, NUDOCS 9608090100 | |
| Download: ML20116G915 (3) | |
Text
_
DOCKEgD RULE & S[o
] )!'
fUMsza P
W @g,ROPgg (u
M Y 77,7".
00CKETED
- "5*"**"**
USt1RC
- 96 AUG -8 P3 :01 ENEnifE..m."
August 2, FFicE OF SECRETARY 1996 Fax
$227ln.en 0
00CKETlHG t. SERylCE Mr. John C. Hoyle ggAncs Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch
Subject:
Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. I and No. 2 BV-1 Docket No. 50-334, License No. DPR-66 BV-2 Docket No. 50-412, License No. NPF-73 10 CFR Part 26 Proposed Rule, "Medifications to Fitness-For-Duty Program Requirements" w
Dear Mr. Hoyle:
l Duquesne Light Company (DLC) is responsible for the operation of Beaver Valley Power Station Units 1 and 2. DLC has reviewed the 10 CFR Part 26 proposed rule,
" Modifications to Fitness-For-Duty Program Requirements," which was published in the Federal Restister on May 9,1996 (61 FR 21105). DLC hereby submits the attached comments.
DLC endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). The NEI comments identify the key issues which need to be considered. DLC concurs with NEI that much in the rule change package should be enacted promptly, while other proposed rule modifications should be withdrawn.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. If you have any questions on this submittal, please contact Mr. Roy K. Brosi, Manager, Nuclear Safety Department, (412) 393-5210.
Sincerely, Sushil C. Jain DEllVERING QU A LITY ENERGY 9608090100 960802 PDR PR SIO 26 61FR21105 PDR
9 i
Comments on 10 CFR Part 26 Proposed Rule,
" Modifications to Fitness-For-Duty Program Reauirements" 1.
NEI Enclosure 3, Item 11,10 CFR 26.27(b)(3)
The proposed language in the NRC amendment is not clear on its intent regarding all fitness-for-duty (FFD) program criteria. Assuming the meaning is to require FFD adherence during a period of unescorted access denial, but while still in a work status, then the proposed Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) recommendation would be much more understandable.
2.
NEI Enclosure 3, Item 19, Appendix A, Section 2.7 K The proposal requiring a same day shipment of the split specimen is impractical.
The violator may request the split test at a time of day in which shipment would be extremely difficult. A 2-3 day window for shipment after the request would be more practical.
3.
NEI Enclosure 4, Item 4,10 CFR 26.24(a)(2)
The concept of " tagging" badges or other means of identifying individuals for
" return to site" testing when they are not available for random testing would impose an additional cost and staffing burden for security and medical departments.
As noted in the NEI comments, each individual is subject to selection each day a list is generated; therefore, there are no " safe" periods. The exemption from testing, presently due to travel restrictions, still subjects the individual to random testing at all other times.
The return to work testing process would require increased medical support for situations when medical is not staffed and a " tagged individual"is returning to duty at the site. It is recommended that the " testing upon return" process be deleted.
4.
NEI Enclosure 4, Item 5,10 CFR 26.24(f)
The proposed requirement for the Medical Review Officer (MRO) to notify licensee management in writing is unnecessary and incurs a delay for initiating action with the violator which is undesirable. It is recommended that the licensee determine the most expeditious means to provide notification by the MRO.
Page 2 5.
10 CFR 26.28 Appeals. (SupplementaryInformation)
The consideration by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to prohibit a licensee from requiring a person to pay for testing their split specimen would increase costs and be an open invitation for each positive to request the split test.
Collecting payment after the split was retumed positive would be impractical in most situations. It is recommended that the licensee be permitted to develop and use split specimen procedures consistent with its needs.
6.
10 CFR 26.24(a)(3) (Supplementary Infonnation)
The consideration to institute a maximum time duration for the initiation of for-cause testing after an incident is too restrictive. While it is in the best interest of all involved parties to test as soon as possible, specifying limits such as 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> for alcohol and 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> for drugs could present situations where the time duration may not be met yet the test results would still be positive, thereby initiating a dispute about the validity of the test. It is recommended that no specific time duration be used to define a valid for-cause test.
e
-