ML20206M772
| ML20206M772 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fort Saint Vrain  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1988 |
| From: | Robert Williams PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF COLORADO |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00349, 53FR36795-349, P-88417, NUDOCS 8812010393 | |
| Download: ML20206M772 (15) | |
Text
__-_ _ _ _ _ - _
. y .
S%
53 FA 3079I ;,-Mir-g rNbid Service- ::::,%,,
P.o. Ses No
'g G,' 23 M '33 O*""'.Co E201440
% c.noer 21,1988 RO WMS, JR Fort St. Vrain Unit No. 1 Em*NEtoo P-88417 Secretary of the Commission Attn: Docketi' g and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docket No. 50-267
SUBJECT:
Proposed Rule. Fitness For Duty Program,10 CFR 26
REFERENCE:
- 1) Vol. 53, No. 184,
- Federal Register, 36795, September 22, 1988 l
2)NUMARCletterdated November 18, 1988 to the
]
- Secretary of the Comission 1
i
Dear Sir:
Pubite Service Company of Colorado (PSCo) submits the following l comments in response to the Proposed Rule of the Nuclear Regulatory i
Comission (NRC) entitled "Fitness for Duty Program," Vol. 53, No.
1 184, Federal Register, 36795 (September 22, 1988). PSCo is an
! investor owned Electric and Gas Utility that operates the Fort St.
i Vrain Nuclear Generating Station near Platteville, Colorado.
! PSco supports the general objectives of the proposed rule and shares
! the NRC's concerns relating to the fitness for duty of nuclear power i plant personnel. PSCo further supports the Comission's Policy l Statement on Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Power Plant Persohnel that
! was published in the F2dera l Register on August 4, 1986 and j recognizes the desire of the NRC to proceed with a rulemaking to l supplement its Policy Statement.
i It is the intent of this correspondence to identify areas of concern
. and provide P3Co's views on this important subject. Our submittal includes the following attachments which provide:
Attachment 1)
PSCO's itemized position on the general coments submitted by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUPARC) in their draft letter to the Secretary of the Comission dated November 18, 1988.
8912010393 801121
$ 53 36795 PDR D.5./ O
. P-88417 ,
Novemoer 21c 1988 Attachment 2)
PSCO's individual genera l comments which were not addressed in Attachment 1.
AttacFrent 3)
PSCO's itemized cosition on the recenmendattuns for sper:f fic wording changes in the proposed rule subnitted by the NUMARC in their dra f t letter to the Secrevary of the Commission dated November 18, 1988.
Attachment 4)
PSCO's recomendations for specific wording changes in the proposed rule which have not been oreviously addressed in Attachment 3.
Attacheent 5)
PSCO's itemized position on the responses to the questions posed in the Dist,ussion section and the Appendix of the proposed rule submitted by the NUMARC in their draft letter to the Secretary of the Commiesten dated November 18, 1988.
Attachment 6)
NUMARC's dra f t letter to the Secretary of the Comission dated November 18, 1988.
PSCo believes that the Comission's proposed program is well focused, but in need of some modification as detailed in the Attachments.
Specific issues include, but a re not limited to: alcohol abuse, standards for determining mental and physical impairments, samole size for the random tests and threshold detection levels.
We appreciate the opportunity to coment en the proposed rule and would welcome the opportunity to discuss our coments further with appropriate NRC staff personnel.
Sincerely; s
/ dA-R. O. Williams, Jr.
Senior Vice President.
Nuclear Operations PCW:8JB/dak Attachments: six
. Attacnnent !
P.88417 Page !
PSCO'S CONCURRENCE WITH THE
GENERAL COMMENT
S SLBMITTED BY NLPARC ITEM ! PSCo concurs with this item as written in the geraral comments attachment of the NUMARC 1etter.
ITEM 2 PSCo concurs with this item as written in the general comments attachment of the NUMARC letter.
ITEM 3 PSCo concurs with this item as written in the general comments attachment of the NUMARC letter.
! TEM 4 PSCo concurs with this item as written in the general comments attachment of the NUMARC letter.
ITEM S PSCo does not concur.
PSCo feels that the intent of this rule is to ensure fitness for duty. The establishment of trustwerthiness and reliability are addresstd in the Accese Authorization Program. An individual occasionally suffering from impairment due to alcohol may be totally reliable and trustworthy but still present a significant danger to himself or others. The rule should be expanded to include alcohol as a substance of abuse which is as detrimental to safety as any of the illegal substances specified in the proposed rule. Alcohol should be incorporated into the rule and the drag testing cutoff levels proposed by NUPARC.
ITEM 6 PSCo concurs with and strongly supports this item as written in the general comments attachment of the NUMARC letter.
ITEM 7 PSCo concurs with and strongly supports this item as written in the general comments attachment of the NUMARC letter.
ITEM 8 PSCo concurs with this item as written in the general comments attachment of the NUMARC letter.
ITEM 9 PSCo concurs with this item as written in the general comments attachment of the NUMARC letter,
' A%2achment 2 P-88417
- Page 1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY'S
GENERAL COMMENT
S CCMMENT 1:
Throughout the entire development process of this rule and during the subseouent discussion and coment stage, it has become apparent to -
PSCo that there is a strong industry tendency to equate "access authorization" to "employeent".
PSCo believet that the proposed rule as put i f shed should be completely reviewed with the purpose of clarifying this issue. :
PSCo's ur.derstanding of the rule is that unescorted access will be !
denied for confirmed positive tusts and other ~,nstances where an individual is unfit for duty. This is entirely oithin the purview of ;
the Comission, and PSCo does not discute their right to establish '
this requirement.
Terefnating the employrent of an individual is the sole right of the licensee or the contractor employing him.
positive tests would, in all likelihood, Granted result in temination of that two confirmed t employment, PSCo does not feel that it is within the Comis sion 's right to mandate such action.
COMMENT 2:
f A second Jfsturbing indestry tendency is to consider the abuse of alcohol not as serious a problem as the abuse of an illegal drug.
PSCo strongly disagrees with this tendency and believes that the abuse of any substance which would impair an individual's ability to perfem hts /her duties should 60 dealt with in the same manner. The intent of this rule is, after all, to establish fitness for duty. ,
The legality or illegality of a substance should nut be an issue in those situations where abuse or impairrent is evident. Reliability, t trustworthiness and integrity, while an inherent concern when illegal l drug use is involved, is dealt with under the Access Authorization Prog ram. [
l CO W ENT 3: I
\
The preposed rule deals at great length with substance abu3e issues (alcohol excepted) but fails to make a strong statement to establish !
t any guidelines in regard to stress, fatigue, fliness, or physical and psychological impairrents. If the Comission's intent is to merely !
l deal with subst3nce abuse, PSCo recomends retitling the t ule as the !
"Illegal Drug Use' rule or the "Substance Abuse" rule (if alcohol is j to be included) and redefining its scope appropriately. '
i l
. 4ttar.hment 3 P.88417 Page 1 PSCO'S CONCUPoENCE WITP NUMARC RECO?'MENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC WORDING 1
ITEM 1 Page 36823. third column earagraoh 26.1. line 5:
1 PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 2 Page 36823. third column. paragraeh 26.2, ifne ll:
PSCo concurs that this item should be reworded, but does ret concur with P.'UMARC's proposed werding on this item.
PSCo's Penoesed tlordino:
1 Delete all reference to TSC's and EOF's.
1 Rationale:
1 Deletten of personnel responding or physically reporting to TSC's and EOF's is supported by the response to discussion question a8 in Attachment C to the NUMARC's letter.
ITEM 3 Page 36823. third column earagraoh 26.2. itne 16:
i PSCo cene.urs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 4 Page 36823 third column. parac.ach 26.2(b), line 4:
PSCo concurs with NL' MARC's proposed wording on this item.
~
ITEM 5 ;ge 36824, first column, caragraoh 26.3:
- PSCo concur
- with NUMARC's proposed wording en this item.
1 s
! TEM 6 Page 36824. firs e column. paragraph 26.3, line 14:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
I l
1 l
_ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _
- Attachment 3
' P-88417 Page 2 s
/
PSCO'S CONCURRENCE WITH NUMARC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC WORDING ITEM 7 Pace 36824 first column. paragraoh 26.3, line 25:
PSCo concurs that this item should be reworded but does not concur with the NUMARC proposed wording nor with NUMARC's rationale.
PSCo's Proposed Wording:
"For-cause Testing" means chemical testing at the request of a supervisor or other responsible management offical, based on a reasonable suspicion that an individual's ability to perform his/her duties is impaired for whatever cause or the individual is exhibitin9 aberrant behavior.
Rationale:
Impairment is a subjective analysis in all cases except in the use of alcohol were specific levels have been firmly established. It is not the intent of this part to establish any additions.. legal levels for impairment. A "reasonable suspicion" of impairment as related to job performance, however, would grant supervisory personnel the latitude that they require to implement the provisions in this part.
(TEM 8 Page 36824, first column, caragraoh 26.3 line 39:
PSCo does not concur with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item and feels that the wording in the proposed rule is adequate for the reasons outlined in Item 7 above.
ITEM 9 Page 36324, first column, paracraoh 26.3,1:r9 53:
P3Co concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 'O Page 36824, first column, paragraph 26.3, if ne 58:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 11 Page 36824, second column, paragraph 26.6:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
Attachment 3 P-88417 Page 3 i
PSCO'S CONCURRENCE WITH NUMARC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC WORDING ITEM 12 Page 36824, second column, paragraoh 26.10(a):
PSCo does not concur with NUMARC's ,nroposed wording on this item and feels that the wording in the propo'ed . rule is adequate.
Rationale:
Although it must be considered a part of the overall Access Authorization Program, the scope of this rule is fitness for duty. Trustworthfress and reifability are established through the Access Authorization Program and are addressed in that program.
4 ITEM 13 Page 36824, third column, paragraph 26.20(a) third sentence:
PSCo does not concur with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item and feels thr' ...e wording in the proposed rule is adequate.
Rationale:
Stress, fatigue and illness must be considered in any comprehensive "Fitness for Duty" rule. The lack of Commission established s ta nda rds , however, would severely i 6ffect the implementation of the rule.
ITEM 14 Page 36824, third column, paragraph 26.20(b):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
l ITEM 15 Page 36825, first column. paragraph 26.21(b):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
l ITEM 16 Page 36825, first column, paragraoh 26.22:
l PSCo does ra t crncur with NUMARC's proposed wording on this t
item and fi " thJt the wording in the proposed rule is adequate.
i l
i
{
u i
1
- R2tachment 3 P-88417 Pagg 4 PSCO'S CONCURRENCE WITH NUMARC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC WORDING ITEM 17 Page 36825, first column. caragraph 26.22(c):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 18 Page 36825, first column, paragraph 26.23(a):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 19 Page 36825, second column. paragraph 26.24(a):
PSCo does not concur with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item and feels that the wording in the proposed rule 's adequate.
ITEM 20 Page 36825, second column paragraoh 26.24(a)(1):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 21 Page 36825, second column, paragraoh 26.24(a)(2)(i) and (ii):
PSCo concurs with and strongly supports NUMARC's proposed f wording on this item.
ITEM 22 Page 36325, second column, paragraoh 26.24(a)(3):
PSCo concurs with and strongly supports NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 23 Page 36825, second column, caragraph 26.24(a)(4):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 24 Page 36825, second column, paragraph 26.24(b):
PSco concurs with and strong 1v supports NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
1 ITEM 25 Page 36825, third column, paragranh 26.25:
PSCo concurs with and strongly supports NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
i
- Attachment 3 P-@8417 Page 5 PSCO'S CONCURRENCE WITH NUMARC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC WORDING ITEM 2C Page 36826, first column, paragraoh 26.25:
PSCo does not concur with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item and feels that the wording in the proposed rule is adequate.
ITEM 27 Page 36826, first column, paracraoh 26.27:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 28 Page 36826, first column, paracraoh 26.27(a), line 31:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 29 Page 36826, first column, paragraoh 26.27(b):
PSCo does not concur with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item and feels that the wording in the proposed rule is adequate.
Rationale:
PSCo feels that the subject of continued employment is a decision which may be made by the management of each licensee based on their corporate emoloyment guidelines and procedures. The intent of this rule, as PSCo understands it, is to limit access authorization to the protected areas of nuclear power plants. Continued access only becomes an actual employment issue if holding such access is a condition of continued employment.
ITEM 30 Page 36826, first column, paragraph 26.27(b)(1):
P500 concurs with NUF.3' 's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 31 Page 36826, first column, paragraph 26.27(b)(1) line 9:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
l l
{
- Attachment 3 P-88417 Pago 6 PSCO'S CONCURRENCE WITH NUMARC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC WORDING ITEM 32 Page 36826, second column, paragraoh 26.27(b)(2):
P500 concurs wi'h NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 33 Page 36826, second column, paragraoh,,_26.27(b)(3):
PSCo partially concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
PSCo's Proposed Wording:
Delete the word "hiring" from the first sentence, fourth line of the NUMARC recomended wording and implement the remainder as written.
Rationale:
The word "hfring" gives the impression that this provision of the rule would only apply to personnel being hired by the licensee and would not apply to contractor personnel.
ITEM 34 Page 36826, t.hird column, paragraph 26.28:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 35 Page 36826, third column, caragraph 26.29(a):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 36 Page 36826, third column, paragraph 26.29(b):
PSCo concurs with and strongly supports NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 37 Page 36826, third column, paragraph 26.70(b)(1):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITCM 38 Page 36827, first column, paragraph 26.70(b)(2):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
Attachment 3 P-88417 Pago 7 PSCO'S CONCURRENCE WITH NUMARC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SPECIFIC WORDING ITEM 39 Page 36827, first column, paragraoh 26.71(d):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 40 Page 36827, second column, paragraph 26.80(a):
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 41 Page 36827, second column, paragraph 26.80(a), line 17:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
ITEM 42 Page 36827, second column, paragraph 26.80 b):
~
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's proposed wording on this item.
i a
L 4
1 5
)
)
i J
i
Attachment 4 P-88417 Page 1 PSCO'S RECOMMENDATICNS FOR SPECIFIC WORDING CHANGES ITEM 1 Page 36824, firs t column, paragraph 26.3 line 14:
Change the word "Drug" in "Drug Abuse" to "Substance". This will also entail changing all other references in the rule from "Drug Abuse" to "Substance Abuse".
Rationale:
Substance Abuse includes a much wider range of psychoactive substances which are abused than those items comonly identified as drugs. Abusers of these substances include, but are not limited to; glue, paint and gasoline sni f fers ,
and alcohol abusers.
ITEM 2 Page 36824, first column, paragraph 26.3:
Add the following definition:
"Reasonable Suspicion" means to surmise to be true or probable based on specific facts and reasonable inferences from those facts in light of experience or training which indicates that an individual may be using or has recently used alcohol or drugs or may be in possession of alcohol or drugs or may be engaged in illegal drug activities.
Reasonable suspicion may be based on reliable statements made by other individuals. Actual cbservation of imparted performance of duties is not necessary.
_Ra tiona le:
Without a definition of "Reasonable Suspicion" supervisors would be severely restricted in their implementation of any "For Cause Testing".
i
- Attachment 5 P-88417 Pago 1 PSCO'S CONCURREtlCE WITH NUMARC COMMENTS ON DISCUSSION SECTION ANDAPPENDIXOFTHEPROPOSEDFf77IE3SFORDUTYRUM Discussion Ouestion 1:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's cements on this itent.
Discussion Ouestion 2:
PSCo does not concur with NUMARC's coments on this item. PSCo believes tha t impai rment is the primary and over-riding issue incorpora ted in this rule and that integrity, reliability and trustworthiness are addressed in the Access Authorization Program.
PSCo feels that efforts should be made to establish standards by which impairments due to stress, fatigue and physical and psychological factors can be weighed. This would strongly s'applement the existing Behavioral Observation programs. Unless such standards are ertablished, reciprocal agreements between utilities regarding fitness for duty issues will be impossible to attain.
Discussion Question 3:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's comments on this item.
Discussion cuestion 4:
PSCo partially concurs with NUMARC's coments on this item. PSCo feels that the Comission should establish the cut off limits for the other drug grour,s which are discussed and include them in the mandatory testing program. A failure to include such comonly available drugs as barbitura tes and rethaqualone would overlook a significant threat to public health and safety.
Discussion Question 5:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's coments on this item.
Discussion Ouestion 6:
PSCo partially concurs with NUMARC's coments on this item. PSCo feels that a cutoff level of 0.04% BAC should be established for alcohol. PSCo disgrees, however, with all further coments expressed in NUMARC's third paragraph on this subject.
- Attachment 5 P-88417 Pag @ 2 PSCO'S CONCURRENCE tdTH NUMARC COMMENTS ON DISCUSSION SECTION-AND APPESTTTirTHE PROPOSED FITNESS FOR DUTY RULE Discussion Question 7: '
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's comments on this item. Furthermore, since ;
every confirned positive screen will impact on an individual's access '
authorization record, this information will fall under 10CFR 73.70 (a) and (b) which read:
" . . . fo r the period during which the ifcensee possess the !
appropria te type. and quantity 'of special nuclear material requiring this record under each license that authorized the activity that is subject to the record keeping requirement and.
, for three years thereafter. Copies of superseded material must be retained for three years after each change."
Assuming that d ifcensee states the reason for access termination on L
' the documentation which withdraws access, whether permanently or tempora rily, that informa tion would be available for a minimum of j three years after the ifcensee de-commissioned.
Discussion Ouestion 8:
PSCo concurs with and strongly supports NUMARC's contents on this i item.
l Discussion Ouestion 9: '
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's comments on this item. .
t Discussion Ouestion 10:
i PSCo concurs with and strongly supports NUMARC's comments on this i
item.
Appendix Question 1:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's connents on this item.
Appentifx Question 2:
PSCo concurs with NUMARC's comments on this item.
m i
l ,
i
Attachmont 5 i
P-88417 Page 3
.i
~
PSCO'S CONCURRENCE WITH NUMARC COMMENTS ON DISCUSSION SECTION !
AND APPENDJX OF THE PROPOSED FITNESS FOR DUTY RULE Appendix Question 3:
L PSCo concurs with NUMARC's connents on this item.
Application of the Backfit Rule:
- PSCo concurs with NUMARC's comments on this item.
~
3.
i r
i i
i 4 a b
1 s
i i
I t
l l
i i i E i ,
! F i
i r
i
)
i .
l
, I
-