ML20206M775

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Random Drug Testing

ML20206M775
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	11/18/1988
From:	Munyan R INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00352, 53FR36795-352, NUDOCS 8812010400
Download: ML20206M775 (2)

Text

~

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKER

.:r3 r

. .i: [_ '- ._ c2 k. ., ... - >'.

5 6 P A 6 6 '7 f '$' bMm '88 t'0V 25 P1 :26

v. . c.ht.

O.

LOCAL UNION 1289 November 18, 1988 Secretary of the Comittee ROBERT A. MUNYAN, PRESIDENT United States fluclear Regulatory Comittee M B E W LOCAL.1289 I Washiagton, D.C. 20555 407 waucoto Avt.  ?

MQlRN, NJ. 087,16 Attn: Docketing and Servicing Branch .e> 9

Dear Sirs:

In answer to retent recommendatiuns, the I.B.E.W. l.ccal 1289, representing the Bargaining Unit Employees at the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in flew Jersey, is responding to proposals your Comission has offered concerning nuclear power plant access.

As you may have noted from our previous letter, we have supported, and we will cnntinue to support, a substance abuse ree working environment. This ensures not only the safety of our fellow workers but also tne safety of our planc's neighbors.

Previously we told you that we support testing a person because of just cause. Under no circumstances can we support random drug testing. We maintain that such a concept is a violation of an individual's constitutional rights. And while such testing may seem to be a popular concept, we also believe that random tes ing would become less effective than the safeguards that are currently in place. We feel that supervisors will become lax in their observations of employee behaiior, depending instead on the results of those tests.

To reiterate our position concerning the te; ting of samples, such test must be

! done by certified technicians wor <ing in a certified laboratory. Each sample should be divided into two conta#ners with one going to the laboratory and the

'econd retained by the licenseo. In the event of a positive test, the second l container should be fomarded tr the lab for verification of test results.

The chain of custXy, as well as the confidentiality of alletest results, must be guaranteed. Y ;.7 A

8810010400 001118 PDR PR PDR 26 53FR36793 l

., s I

Thresneld limits must be established and standardized throughout the indust"y. We feel that the U.S. military's level of 100 nanograms of tetrhydrocannabinol per milliliter is an appropriate limit. And we strongly oppose the "zero tolerance" level being proposed.

The reason given by the Comission for advocating zero tolerance is that if a i licensee detemines what sanctions will oe imposed or an individual on a ,

case-by-case basis, the licensee is subjecting themselves to legal challenges. However, the Conunission fails to use the same rational by allowing licensees to set more stringent limits than the HHS Guidelines which will also make fitness-for-duty programs vulneraole to legal challenges since the accuracy and reliability of the tests will be challenged. By allowing license:5 to determine on a case-by-case basis, it will, in some cases, save the licensee the costs of replacing trained personnel, legal challenges and f reduction of morale at the site.

We believe provisions for rehabilitation programs must be initiated. Such I programs, commonly referred to as Employee Assistance Programs (EAP), must be l conducted by certified and licensed counselors. '

Thank you for your attention.

4

\

Robert A."P

• &Y yan cc: P. Schoop 1

i