ML20206M532

Comment Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re fitness-for-duty Program

ML20206M532
Person / Time
Site:	Millstone, Haddam Neck, 05000000
Issue date:	11/21/1988
From:	Mroczka E CONNECTICUT YANKEE ATOMIC POWER CO., NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY CO., NORTHEAST UTILITIES
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00316, 53FR36795-316, NUDOCS 8812010055
Download: ML20206M532 (9)

Text

-

26 N bh DDOKET NUMBERgg

~

W DOLKETED u M.C s HOV 22 A10:01 i

1

" 7 % "*O ~~

m.n f

,m "N

. j.w"m"Z" r

l November 21, 1988 pocketNo.50-21h 50 24 i

50 n Ret 10CFR26 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk, Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.

20055 Attention: Docketing snd Service Branch Gentlemen:

Haddam Neck Plant Hillstone Nuclear Power Station, Unit !!os.1, 2, and 3 Procesed Rule:

Fitness-for.0uty Prg.g m The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) published a proposed rule titled Fitness-for Duty Program on September 22, 1988 (53FR36795), and requested public coments by November 21, 1988. Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CVAPCO) and Northeast Nuclear Energy Company (NNECO) hereby provide coments on the proposed rule.

We have conducted an extensive review of the proposed regulation including attendance at the NRC Public Meeting on October 17 snd participation in the NUMARC workshop on October 10, 1988.

We support the NRC's' initiative in addressing concerns relating to.iie fitness for duty of nuclear ~ power plant personnel and, in general, suppirt the proposed rule. We have contribuy on to the de..h,Mai.t of, and generally concur with, NUMARC's coment letter the proposed rule. Our company specific coments on this rulemaking are detailed in the t/o attachments to this letter.

Attachment A consists of our pener,1 coments on this rulemaking, focusing-on areas of special importance.

l n Attachment B, we are providing specific coments referencing NUMARC's submittal. Attachment B provides additional amphasis or elaboration on issues addressed in NUMARC's coments.

0012(el0055 001121 PDR PR 26 53FR36795 PDR (1)

J. F. Colvin letter to S. J. Chilk,, "Proposed Rule Fitness for Duty Prograli " dated November 18,1!%.

D b/ Q

1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission B13078/Page 2 November 21, 1988 While we believe it is clear that the issuariw of a final rule would preempt wish to strongly emphasize the importance of the NRC's inclusion of ment to this eti.ct to emphasize that the existing Connecticut state law is preempted in its entirety.

Attachment A.

Additional discussion of this issue is included in In order to preclude potential problems in implementing a new Fitness for. Duty certain provisions of tae rule need to be more specific.

Most

progran, significant of these is the definition of "for cause".

While it appears from discu%7 at the NRC Public Meeting on October 17, 1988 that evidence of off-site involvement with drugs meets the NRC definition of testing "for-ca.use,' without explicit wording in the final rule, our ability to take action upon receipt of evidence of off site use of drugs could be challenged.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and welcome further discussion with the Staff as needed.

Very truly yours, CONNECT! CUT YANXEE ATOMIC POWER COMPANY P

NORTHEAST NUCLEAR ENERGY COMPANY Of9/

!;n 2 n,esides cc:

W. T. Russell, Region ! Administrator A. B. Wang, NRC Project Manager, Haddam Neck Plant J. T. Shediosky, Senior Resident Insoector Haddam Neck Plant M. L. Boyle, NRC Project Manager, M111stshe%1t No.t11.w am..,e,

C. H. Jaffe, NRC Project Manager, Millstone thifMiF22an$3:.-e,c i

W. 4. Raymond, Senior Resident Inspector, Millhon6. Unit Nos'.M. 2, and 3 Document Control Desk

' ~.. ~ ' ^ " ' -

c.

u x

L I

1

Docket Nos. 50-M' :i 50-3 <!t 50 h b

$6.t.l B13U!l l Attachment A General Coments on ti NRC's Proposed Rule on Fitt iss-for Duty Programs i

I I

.l I

i l

i November 1980

. Attachment A e

Page 1 General Cc nts Need for Preaantion We wish to advise ge Staff that, as we stated in our letter dated

~

September 24, 1987, current Connecticut law prohibits CYAPC0 and NNECO from conducting any drug testing other than

) reemployment and "for-cause", unless the Connecticut Labor Department designates the employee's occupation as "high risk" or "safety-sensitive" (this designation for our employees has not been made by the state), or such testing is authorized under federal law.

In addition, the proposed rule will conflict with other provisions of the Connecticut law concerning issues such as confi-Since a final dentiality of drug testing results and testint procedures.

NRC rule will preempt any and all state and local laws, we request that such a statement be included in the Statement of Considerations accom-panying the final rule to visibly reinforce this point.

Testina Standards We support the reduced cut off levels and reduced test frequency proposed We by NUMARC as compared to the two ostions in the proposed rule.

support the concept of uniform testsng cut off levels throughout the industry, which would produce a body of meaningful data and also serve to minimize problems associated with licensee to licensee variations in testing programs.

AlcohS1 We are supportive of including the requirement for testing for alcohol in the random and for.cause testing situations.

We believe that prescrip-tive detail is inanpropriate at this time and that our existing company The policios and programs thoroughly address this.rea of cones /n.

absence of any explicit arovisions in the troposed rule regarding ulcohol reinforce the perspect9ve that detailec requirements shuuld not be promulgated at this time.

Off-tite Druo Involvement The proposed rule is not explicit on the issue of ofi site use of drugs.

We favor inclusion of a specific provision 19 the rule that states that licensees are authorized to take action, including drug testing,Off siteif they become aware of off site use of drugs from a credible source.

drug use has important ieplications regarding both integrity and impair.

ment which should be investigated.

(1)

E. J. Hroczka letter to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Connecticut State t.aw Concerning Drug Testing," dated September 24, 1987.

i

j Attachment A Fage 2 Backfit Analvtis With respect to the NRC's backfit analy) sis, l

ii The NRC 'sackfit analysis should be eliminated.

rAasons described in coment letters provided by (ii) of 50.109(a)(4)ded for IN but the exception provision should be avoided.

should be upgra f

Use of the exception provision would suggest that the existing both NUMARC and NUBARG, do NRC regulations does not provide an adequate level of protacito riate not believe this is the case. analysis would satisfy the backfit ru course of action.

l i

i 1

' Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, N.

. Reynolds letter to 5. J. Chilk, 21, 1988.

Fitness for Outy Programs," dated November (2)

(

r i

__ m Docket Non.

iO i!

N 0-l5,:

!,0 :,l d

iG i

.; l

13u,u e

6 l

Attachment B Coments on NUMARC's Coment Letter on the NRC's Proposed Rule on Fitness-for Duty Programs I

November 1988

'Page 1 Coments on NUMARC Covent Letter Our personnel were involved with the development of NUMRC's coment letterII) concerning the proposed rule on Fitness for-Duty programs and generally concur with the coments included in that submittal.

Provided in this attachetnt are coments on the proposed rule which augment the NUMRC submittal, or address points otherwise considered worthy of amplification.

For those portions of the NUMRC submittal with which we concur, no additional coments are offered.

Our coments will follow the format of the NUMRC letter, addressing its gen 2ral comments, recomendations for specific wording changes in the rule, and also their responses to the questions posed in the Discussion section and the Appendix of the proposeJ rule, a ' 4.Q.'i.fteneral Covents f Attachment A)

We recomend that the NRC adopt a 100% testing rate, but that the testing o

sample size and threshold levels be reevaluated in about three years so that appropriate changes can be made.

Specifically, we believe that a testing rate of less than 100% would be optimum, and that the sample size requirement could be lowered in the future, o

We recomend that the final rule explicitly allow, but not require, testin 2.1(a)g for more than the five classes of drugs described in paragraph (1) and (2) of the HHS Guidelines.

NUMARC's Recomendations for Soecific Wordino Chances (Attachment B) 26.2 Stone o

In addition to concerns expressed by NUMRC with imslementation, licensees might have a probhm in availability of laboratornes certified per the HHS requirements.

Tha period of time from application to final grantin months.g of certification will likely be aparoximately four to five Before issuance of the final rule anc implementation schedule, the Commission should take steps to ensure that HHS can provide an adequato number and distribution of certified labs to support licensees in a responsive fashion.

26.22 Trainina of Suoervisors and Escorts he recomend that paragraph 25.22(b) be deleted in its entirety.

Escorts o

and nonsupervisory people do not require this type of training to meet the objectives of the croposed rule.

l (1)

J. F. Colvin 'atter to S. J. Chilk, "Proposed Rule Fitness for-Dut,y Program," dated November 18, 1988.

Attachment B

-Page 2 26.24 Chemical Testin_o Paragraph 26.24 a (3),

con:.orning teeting for cause, should include o

specific referenc(e)to, and provision far. drug testing in response emp oyee/ contractor off-site involvement with illegal drugs, Either the quality controls on testing laboratories in 26.24 o

Statement of Considerations issued with the final rule, shou (e), or the ld clarify that 10CFR50 Appendix B does not apply to firms supplying drug testing services. NRC guidance should explicitly state that A be invoked on the suppliers of such testing services.ppencix B shall not The HHS certifi-cation provides the appropriate level of assurance.

26.25 Erolovee Assistanes proorams (EAP)

We do not agree with NUMARC's reconnended deletion of the last sentence.

o If the NRC is attempting to establish a requirement that EAP staff breech confidentiality, then it must clearly delineate the conditions / situations which call for such breaching.

This is essential because federal regulations generally prohibit the disclosure of such information (e.g.,

42 CFR Part 2. Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records).

Additional detailed guidance is needed.

26.27 Hanaaement Actions and Sanctions to be Imsosed We recomend that paragraph 26.27(a) be amended to state that during the o

pei tod < a "suitable inquiry" for drug involvement, temporary access authorization, in accordance with the Access Authorization Policy, would be available to the iteensee.

26.29 Protectic,1 of Inferration We agree with the wording changes suggested by NUMARC for paragraph o

26.29(b). However the paragraph as rewritten continues to be unclear as to who can access,information )dthout an employee release.

(Clarifica-tionisneeded).

26.73 Reoortina Recuire %

We recomend that the reporting requirements in paragraph 26.73(a)(3) or o

the Statement of Considerttions issued with the final rule be more explicit regarding how the notification is to be fulfilled.

One option is for the NRC to prepare a standard form to be used exclusively for this type of report, We recomand that licensees report the names and social security numbers o

of perscns involved with illsgal drugs to the NRC and that the NRC maintain and distribute a master list to all licensees.

Having the NRC make that information available to all licensees would place the federal government in the lead role, similar to the handling of criminal record checks, where the FBI is the central clearing house for such reporting.

This would significantly expedito the suitable inquiry srocess.

The provisions of 10CFR2.790 could be invoked to limit the disclosure of this information.

Attachment B Page 3 NUMARC's Resoonses to the Ouestions in the Discussion and Aeoendix (Attach-ment Cl Discussion Question 4 o

We support testing for more than the five classes of drugs described in the HHS Guidelines.

We currently test for additional substanets, and would like the final rule to explicitly authorize, but not require, this practice.

Discussion Ou stion 5 o

We believe that only laboratory personnel should have access to the knowledge of the results of unconfire.ed initial test results, No action should be taken (d.tcal Review Officer (MRO) concur i.e.,

removal of unescorted acce ss) on any o

tests results unless the He confirmed oositive test results.

Upon confirmation and concarrence by the MRO, the only individuals to be informed should be the emphyes, the immediate supervisor, senior station management, and involved security personnel.

Discussion Ouestion 6 o

We believe that alcohol should be included in the random and for cause testing situations, but not in preaccess testing. We believe it unlikely that applicants for employment or licensee ceployees seeking unescorted access will have difficulty passing a pre announced alcohol test.

i

__