ML20195J900

Comment on Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program.Detailed Comments on Rule Encl

ML20195J900
Person / Time
Site:	Duane Arnold
Issue date:	11/29/1988
From:	Rothert W IES UTILITIES INC., (FORMERLY IOWA ELECTRIC LIGHT
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00373, 53FR36795-373, NUDOCS 8812050089
Download: ML20195J900 (4)

Text

'

&p i

7 .

S$R .3G 77 Towa Electric Light and Power Company November 29, 1988 E NG-88-3950 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary of the Commission U.;. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch

Subject:

Duane Arnold Energy Center Docket No: 50-331 Op. License No: OPR-49 Comments on proposed Fitness-for-Outy Rule, 10 CFR Part 26 File: A-105, A-106a, A-119

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter provides comments regarding the proposed new part to NRc.

regulations, 10 CFR Part 26, generally referred to as the proposed Fitness-for-Outy Rule as published in the Federal Register, Volume 53, No.184, dated Thursday, September 22, 1988.

Thank you for the oppoi'tunity to comment on this issue.

Sincerely, m _

^ '

- @ r7 Rot erY N b r- -e

, . Nuclear Divi, ion WCR/8HJ/ddl+

Attachmer.t 1 '

cc: B. Johnson R. M:Gaughy L. Root L. Liu 8012050007 00112'?

PDR PH

'6 4 53FR36795 PDR General QOlce

• P O Bon 358

• Cedar Bapds lowa 32406

• 319.'398 4411

Attachraent 1 November 29, 1988 CCPfiENTS ON PROPOSED FITNESS-FOR-DUTY PROGRAM The foilowing are comments submitted by Iowa Electric Light and Power Company on the proposed Fitness-for-Duty Rule as published in the Federal Register, Volume 53, No. 184, dated Thursday, September 22, 1988.

1. Pace 368,PJ a rrd column. section 26.2 The proposed rule is vague with respect to the treatment of NRC'-licensed operators. If, in the Commission's view, NRC-licent o .perators are not intanded to be treated as a speciti sub' group of th m individuals subject to the rule, then the rule should be explici in that fact.

If, however, NRC-licensed operators are intended te be treated as a special sub group of those 'sch- Juals subject to the rule, thcn the Fitness-for-Outy rule should e ess any unique requirernents pertaining to '

NRC-licensed operators by exo' :t (tly prescribing actions pertaining to these individuals and providing just- 'tution for these actiers.

There has been sufficient t..dication that some personnel consider NRC-licensed operators a soecial sub group of those individuals subject to current Fitness-for-Outy Programs that the issue should be addressed.

2. Pace 36823. third column. earaaraoh 26,2{A1 The rule should only apply to those individuals with unescorted access to the protected area. Requiring persons reporting to the EOF to be drug tested is not reasonable or practical. In Iowa Electric's case, we use a number of non-nuclear employees to support the Emergency Response Organization. These employees have not bean granted unescorted access to te orotected area, and do not require unescorted accesa, to the protected area in the performance of assigned duties at the EOF. They respor.d in an emergency situation to the EOF

, and work under the control of nuclear supirvisors and managere. These supervisors and managers, who are subject to drug testing, contrcl the dere,1on making processes in an emergency.

S.

Pace 36823. t'ird column. oaraaraoh 25.2(bl.

4 The proposed rule requires implementation within 90 days after publication of the final rule. Fron experience, implementation of Iowa Electric's existing Fitness-for-Outy Prog,am required in excess of 'JO days.

In order to provide utilities ample time to implement a procedure to be in compliani.e with the rule this time frame should be changed to 120 days after publication of th' ule.

4. P3 aa__36825. first column. 03raaraoh 26.22(b)

This paragraph mWes spec!al training for pe.rons assigned escort duties. We believe that, tc 5e effective, a behavioral observation progran must be capable of detecting chang:s in behavior thtt could b., attributed to use of drugs. Escorts typical'y are ne assigr.ed for a iong er,cugh period of time to

1 .

i

, make a meaningful asressment of changes in an escorted individual's bahavior. l i

' Therefore, use of escorts to detect drug use by behavioral observation is not  ;

effective. Escorts should receive the same general tr71ning Ciat all plant i employees receive. Furthermore, requ', ring that escorts be provided the name level of training as supervisors and managers in this area would burden utilities with unnecessary training and impose hardship by severely limiting the number of employees that could escort others. This would be very restrictive and would interfere with the day-to-day activities of the plant.

This paragraph should be deleted from the proposed rule so that only managers and supervisors would be required to be trained ir, behavioral observation

techniques.

, 5. Paae 36825. second column. Daracraoh 26.24(aM1) l This paragraph requires testing immediately before the initial granting j of unescorted access. The term "immediately" is vague and the wording should be changed to explicicly state an acceptable period of time within which t.esting

. It required prior to initial granting of unescorte.d access.

I

, 6. Paae 36826. second column. Daraoraoh 26.27(bM3) i J

This paragraph requires "satisfactory medical assurance that the person

)'

has abstained from drugs for at lcast three years" before an individual, who has been denied access as a result of this rule, can be granted unescorted access. The term "satisfactory medical assurance" is vague and appropriate acceptance criteria should be included to clarify the requirement. Acceptance criteria may include a gradual decrease in the rate of prescribed follow-up

! testing such that, the individual, assuming no positive test results were received, would be tested at the normal unannounced random rate for the rest of the population being testad at tbc end of the three year period.

7. P.Agg 36827. second column. Daracraoh 26.80fa) 1 The end of the f'rst sentence should be modified to read, ". . . . audited 4 af ter the first year of implementation." In addition, where appearing, change

] the ren:aining "13-month audit" periodicity to "every three years." After an implementation a.dit, the 13-month audit requirement is excessive. An audit every three years would be consistent with NUMARC comments on the proposed Access Authorization Policy.

l 8. Paae 36827. second column. caraoraoh 26.80fa)

I i The last sentence of this paragraph snould be modified to read "Licensees l retain responsibility to ensure compliance of contractor programs and the i implementation of appropriate corrar:tive action." Use of the term

] "ef fectivriness" is too subjective. ' compliance" with regulations should be the 3

requiroent.

l l

4

9. E12p 36827. second column. earagraoh 26.83(b)

The term "effectiveness" should be deleted from the first sentence and

.he sentence should be changed to read "Audits shall focus on the program and its specific elements to assure compliance and be conducted . . . ." As noted previously, use of the term "effectiveness" is too subjectf ve, "compliance" with regulations should be the requirement.

10. Pace 36827. second column. caraaraoh 26.80(b)

Clarification is needed on what is meant by ". . . . individuals qualified in the subject (s) being audited, . . . ." The term "qualified" in this sense ,

could mean qualified medical, psychological, and laboratory personnel, and should be defined in the context of the rule.

l 1

J l

I i

J l A

i a

6 f

1  :

I l

-