ML20195H284
| ML20195H284 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1988 |
| From: | Denise Edwards YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00306, 53FR36795-306, FYC-88-016, FYC-88-16, GLA-88-123, NUDOCS 8811300316 | |
| Download: ML20195H284 (8) | |
Text
- -
YANKEEA TOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY ., Q'y "*l" ll,'f,"l"
. i b , , . ..
' ata
[* ,M * '
- O;; , Q ,i '
d (o FYC 88-016 EWM 5580 Main Street, Bolton, MassagguM}& 2117dd$ ~'
- m. 3 November 17, 1988..,
I .r United States Nuclear Ragulatory Cortmission Secretary of the Cornisaion Washington, DC 20555 ,
Attentions Docketing and Service Branch Subject; Proposed Rule on Fitness for Duty
Dear Sir:
Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the subject proposed rule on Fitness for Duty (FFD). YAEC owns and operates a nuclear power plant in Rowd, Massachusetts. Our Nuclear Services Division also provides engineering and licensing services for other nuclear power plants in the Northeast, including Vernont Yankee, Maine Yankee and Seabrook.
The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC) is submitting detailed comments on the subject proposed rule. YAEC, which is a member of NUMARC, supports those comments.
We have attached detailed comments reiterating and supporting those of particular interest to us. In addition, we would like to highlight the following key concerns about the regulation as presently drafted.
In providing engineering support services to the other licensees named above, our engineers are frequently on their sites and are routinely provided unescorted access after appropriate training. As drafted, the Fitness for Duty Rule does not permit one licensee to accept the FFD program of another licensee. This circumstance could subject a Yankee engineer who has been granted uneecorted access to four sites, including his own, to an inordinate amount of testing. We feel that this level of testing far exceeds the intent of the Fitness for Duty Rule and would place an unreasonable burden on our employees in addition to burdening each test program. We
' believe that one licensee, knowing that another licensee must comply with the FFD rule, should be allowed to exclude the employee of that other organization from his random pool. The burden of proof would remain with the pa' rent organization to meet the spirit and intent of the rule. The details of any such arrangement could be between licensees subject to NRC inspection and audit.
he appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
Very truly yours. -
9 , W 26 53FR36795 Donald W. Edwards Director, Industry Affairs DWE/mjc b bl O
..Att che:nt'I YAEC Comments on the Propcsed Fitness for Duty Rule Comment # 1 Paragraph 26.2 Page 36823 Column Third Comment: There is general agreement that you should change the word respond (line 11) to the phrase "physically report". The sentence should read "personnel required to physically report to a licensee's Technical Support Center..."
Discussion / Justification: We agree with Numarc's position that the language should be specific and address those individuals that physically report to the TSC or EOF. It is felt that most of the Key TSC/ EOF personnel and particulary those in decision making positions are granted unescorted access as a part of their normal duties it is unnecessary to expand the program to create an additional category ( SC/ EOF)
Comment # 2 Paragraph 26.2(b)
Page 36823 Column 3rd Comment: Change "90 Days" (Line 4) to read "180 Days af ter publication of final rule" Discussion / Justification: The major modifications necessary to insure compliance with the Fitners for duty rule go beyond the inclusion of a random drug testing program. Changer in existing Policy the development of resources to support expanded programs, negotiation and review of contractor FFD programs, and the addition of major requirements in the areas of employee training and orientation suggest that as a miniaum 180 days be allocated for program implementation Comment # 3 Paragraph 26.23 Page 36825 Column 1st Comment: Change the Title - From Contractor to "Contractor and other lincensees."
Should Readt"Written agreements between licensees and contractor, or licensees and other licensees for activities within the scope of this part shall be retained for the life of the contract or agreement between licensees and will clearly show that ..."
1
Discussion / Justification Yankee Atomic Electric Company, as a licensee, operates a nuclear power plant. In addition to operating this plant, we provide engineering support services to three other licensees. There is a concern that, as currently drafted, the Fitness for Duty Rule does not permit one licensee (A) to accept the FFD program of another licensee (B). This circumstance could subject a Yankee engineer who has been granted unescorted sceess to four sites, including his own, to an ir. ordinate amount of testing. We feel that this level of testing far exceeds the intent of the Fitness for Duty Rule and would place an unreasonable burden on our employees. It is therefore felt that Licensee A, knowing that Licensee B must comply with the FFD rule, should be allowed to exclude Licensee B's employee from his random pool.
Licensee B's employee then could continue in Licensee B's random pool. The burden of proof would be on Licensee B to meet the spirit and intent of the rule. The details of any such arrangement would be between Licensees subject to KRC inspection and audit.
Comment # 4 Paragraph 26.24 (a)(1) and (ii)
Page 36825 Column 2nd Comment: Both alternative (i) and (ii) provide for excessive testing requirements. The objective "to deter and detect" will clearly be met at 100%. At a 100% testing rata "e has a confidence factor of .63, two of three individuals, will be tested in a given period. The NRC testing rate is presently at 100% and the industry should not be held to higher standard than that of those who regulate.
YAEC concurs with the NUMARC positions in the following areas; Substance list Cutoff levels for the substances listed Discussion / Justification: We feel strongly that a testing rate exceeding 100% will be counterproductive, expensive and demoralizing.
With the perceived intrusiveness of random testing, it is conceiveable one could create an environment of disgruntled employees. Excessive testing, perceived as "testing for the sake of testing" may be counter to security's regulatory mission. We all understand -
that we must "pay a price" for working in this industry. For this program to meet all the objectives the Commission seeks, it must be well written, and appear as reasonable as possible <
to the industry population.
2
Comment # 5 Paragraph 26.24 (a)(3)
Page 36825 Column 2nd Comment:
Testing for cause is a major part of any testing program and as such clear examples of what circumstances would justify a test for cause should be provided. Examples would include but not be limited to...on site observation of use or possession of drugs or alcohol; conduct consistant with being under the influence of drugs or alcohol; hearsay or anonymous allegations where investigation shows that additional corroborative information or circumstances exist; involvement in an unusual or suspicious circumstance that could reasonably lead to a conclusion of possible drug or alcohol involvement; a situation resulting in a radiation exposure or release of radioactivity in excess of regulatory limits that could indicate possible drug or alcohol involvement; situations involving actual or potential substantial degradations of the level of safety of the plant that could indicate possible drug or alcohol involvement.
Discussion / Justification: Supervisors play an important part in the test for cause scenario becauce of their behavior observation responsibilities. Since judgement is required to make a test or not determination it seems that it would be in the best interests of all involved that the process be simplified by providing a basic list of circumstatice for reference. It would be difficult to develop an all inclusive list. However, some guidance and specificity is required to make this process work efficiently.
Comment # 6 Paragraph 26,25 Page 36825 Column 3rd Comments: We agree with the industry supported NUMARC comment pg. 8 B #25 which suggests that the Employee Assistance Program is required only for licensee programs and their employees.
We suggest however that the word permanent be deleted where associated with the words employees or licensee employees and replaced with the word "regular."
Discussion / Justification: It is important that we not allow any language to exist in the body of this rule that suggests that there is a permanence to the employment process at license,e companies.
3 i
1 L
Comment # 7 Paragraph 26.27 Page 36826 Column 1st Comment: The section title "Management Actions and Sanctions To Be Imposed" should be deleted in its entirety. When prescribing management actions for individual licensees, the NRC encroaches upon private sector employer rights. Any discipline or employment decision made should be totally at the discretion of the licensee.
Discussion / Jus tifica tion: The NRC has clearly made its intentions known in the area of Fitness For Duty (FFD). Licensees have, in many cases, adopted FFD policies reflecting their individual management styles, plant site characteristics, and plant populations.
Uniformity in the areas of training, a substance list, EAP, etc.
are all welcome, but licensee decisions on discipline or employment should not be regulated albeit to a "minimum" sanction.
Having expressed our opinion, we are prepared to comment on individual sections and wording in 26.27 Comment # 8 Paragraph 26.27 (a)
Page 36826 Column 1st Comment: In the third sentence which begins "To meet this requirement"...
at the end of the sentence add the following words "when presented with a signed release form from the individual in question."
i The third sentence would now read "To meet this requirement, the identity of persons denied unescorted access or removed under the provisions of this part and the circumstances for such denial or removal, including test results, will be made available in response to an inquiry by any company or its contractor falling under the scope of this part when presented with a signed release form from the individual in question.
Discussion / Justification: This would provide some level of assuran:e and protection to the licensee responding to an inquiry, that the individual is cognizant of the inquiry and the inquirer has
} a bona fide need to know.
t 4
1 1
Comment # 9 Paragraph 26.27 (b)
'Page 36826 Column 1st Comment: Assuming some level of "minimum" sanction by manage. ment will be prescribed, the following alternate wording is proposed.
In the second sentence which begins "Nothing herein"... add the words..."up to and including dismissal."
This sentence would now read "Nothing herein shall prohibit the licensee from taking more stringent actions up to and including dismissal."
Discussion / Justification: This paragraph alludes to "minimum" sanction however it should be clear that a given set of circumstances may dictate dismissal.
Comment # 10 .
Pa ragraph 26.27 (b)(1)
Page 36826 Column 3rd Comment: Add the words "which includes successfully completing a chemical test" after the word assurance. The paragraph should read "Satisfactory management and medical assurance, which includes successfully completing a chemical test, of the individual's fitness to adequately perform activitier within the scope of this part shall be obtained before permitting the individual to be returned to these activities."
Discussion / Justification: Any individual testing positive for the first time should be retested before returning to his or her duties. During the 14 day minimum sanction, the individual I
is out of licensee control and observation. There is no assurance that "EAP assessment and counseling" will have had any significant impact on a substance abuse problem in this 14 day period.
Comment 11 Paragraph 26.28 Page 36826
{ Column 3rd .
Comment: In the first sentence which begins "Each licensee"...
after the word "for" add the words "its regular full-time", and after the word "and" delete the words "contractor / vendor employees" i
In the second sentence which begins "The procedure must provide"...
i after the word "of" delete the words "due process" and substitute "fairness".
5
1 The first and second sentences would read "Each licensee subject to this-part shall establish a procedure for its regular full-time employees to appeal fitness for duty determinations that could have an adverse effect on the individual's employment. The procedure
- must provide notice and an opportunity to respond and be consistent 1
with fundamental principles of fairness."
Discus sion/ Jus tifica tion: The licensee need only have responsibility for its regular full-time employees. All others, including contractor or vendor personnel would be dealt with by withholding unescorted access. The licensee cannot be expected to administer "policy",
i in the broadest sense of the word, for its contractors.
Comment # 12 4
l Paragraph 26.70 (b)(1)
Page 36826 i
Column 3rd Comment: In the first sentence which begins "Licensee is responsible"...
{ after the word "maintaining" delete the words "an effective",
l add the word "a", after the word "in" delete the word accordance",
] and substitute the word "compliance".
1 i The first sentence would read "Licensee is responsible to the Commission for maintaining a fitness for duty program in compliance with this part; and" i
Discussion / Justification: The word "effective" will subject each licensee's fitness for duty program to being redefined at each inspection by every individual NRC, INPO, and internal auditor's interpretation. Substituting compliance for the word effective I
increases the potential for a more consistent interpretation
] of fitness for duty program requirements.
l Comment # 13 Paragraph 26.71 9d)
Page 36827 Column 1st Comment: In the first sentence which begins "Collect and compile"...
i after the word "program" delete the word "performance", after the word "as" delete the words "described in NRC Form XXX." and i add the words "necessary to document compliance with this Part."
I In the second sentence which begins "The date shall"... reword j the sentence to read as outlined below.
i
! The first and second sentences should read "Collect and compile
] fitness for duty data necessary to document compliance with this
{ Part. The data shall be analyzed to identify and correct program
- weaknesses.
l 6
Discussion / Justification: The NRC Form XXX referenced in this
'section of the proposed rule goes befond documenting compliance. !
In section 26.70 (b) (2), the "NRC may inspect, copy or take '
away copies of any licensee or contractor documents, records, and reports...". By requiring a separate form to document the information s1 ready on file, it is duplicating much of the administrative burden the program prescribes and is unnecessary.
Comment # 14 Paragraph 26.80 (a)
Page 36827 Column 2nd Comment: In the third sentence which begins "Licensees retain"...
mfter the word "responsibility" delete the "for the effectiveness" and substitute the words "to ensure compliance".
The third sentence should read "Licensees retain responsibility to ensure compliance of contractor programs and the implementation of appropriate corrective action.
Discussion / Justification: As stated previously, retaining the word effectiveness in the rule will cause the fitness for duty rule to interpreted endlessly.
Comment # 15 Paragraph 26.80 (b)
Page 36827 Column 1st Comment: In the first sentence which begins "Audits shall focus"...
after the word "on"delete the "the effectiveness" and substitute the words "strict compliance".
The first sentence should read "Audits shall focus on strict compliance of the program and be conducted by individuals qualified in the subjects being audited, and indeptndent of both program manaagement and personnel directly responsible for the implementatien of the fitness for duty program.
Discussion / Justification: As stated previously, retaining the word effectiveness in the rule will cause the fitness for duty rule to interpreted endlessly.
7