ML20206M537
| ML20206M537 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1988 |
| From: | Weigand G VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00324, NUDOCS 8812010067 | |
| Download: ML20206M537 (2) | |
Text
-- --
VERMONT YANKEE 1, k_
W
.m
. a.
e NUCLEAR POWER CORPORATION (G Frl 36795-)
RD 5. Box 169. Ferry Road. Brattleboro. VT o53o1 NOV 22 P3 :l7 y
1
.I f s
(602) 257-5271 November 18, 1988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary United States Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20b55 Attention:
Docketing and Service Branch Subj ect:
Proposed Fitness For Duty Rule
Dear Mr. Chilk:
On behal f of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation (VY), we would like to offer the following coments in response to the request from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") for coments on the proposed Fitness For Duty Program rule (b3FR36795).
The Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC), of which VY is a memoer, is submitting detailed coments regarding this rule wnich we fully support. Additionally, we would like to empnasize the following four areas wnicn are of key concern to VY:
1.
On July 1, 1987 the State of Vermont enacted a Drug Testing Law.
To ensure that no conflict develops over jurisdiction in this 1
regard it is extremely important tnat the hRC include clear language in this rule stating that its regulations in this area preempt state and/or local laws and regulations.
2.
The random testing sample size requirements outlined in Paragraph 2o.24 (a) (1) and (ii) are excessive and onerous.
The objective.
"to deter and detect", will clearly be met with a testing limit set at 4U1. This is the level of testing established by the Department of Transportation. Setting a limit aoove that is unjustifiable and i
may in fact have a negative impact on safety. Additiv.ially, this I
i standaro ignores the otner valuable programs that have been developed and implemented (i.e., background investigations, psychological screening, continuous behavioral observation, training, and Employee Assistance Programs),
i 8812010067 001I10 QR$3%36795 DMO 1
vi nuns y mi i N i ii su enui w coiii on siins g
2-3.
In Paragraph 26.23 we recomend that a change be made that allows one licensee to accept the FFD Program of another licensee. VY receives engineering support services from the Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC) wnicn also operates a nuclear power plant and is tnerefore a licensee.
YAEC employees that perform engineering support services at VY are grantea unescorted access to our facility; as tne Fitness For Duty Rule is presently drafted, they would have to take and pass a drug test administered by VY even though their employer (YAEC) is a licensee and nas a similar program.
This puts a significant burden on these indiviauals and subjects tnem to an inordinate amount of testing.
To eleviate this recundancy we suggest tnat when one licensee, knows that another licensee must comply with the FFD rule tney snould be allowed to exempt the employee of the other organization from having to comply witn the provisions of their program before access is authorized.
Clearly the buraen of proof rests witn the parent company to meet the spirit and intent of the rule.
We appreciate this opportunity to coment on the proposed rule.
Sincerely s
s
_ L' Gary Weigano v.
Presiaent & Chief Executive Of ficer JGW:vas