ML20206M786

Comments Supporting Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program Re Substance Abuse.Urges Commission to Adopt Suggested Specific Changes Indicated by NUMARC Comments

ML20206M786
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	11/21/1988
From:	Schrouder W, Rich Smith ROCHESTER GAS & ELECTRIC CORP.
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00347, 53FR36795-347, NUDOCS 8812010410
Download: ML20206M786 (4)

Text

WS N .' T 'm, hfl

' : u rii.a .; , n ; 3. { g

N N ?ff -

1 s.e ROCHESTER GAS AND ELECTRIC CCRPORATION . 89 EAST AVENUE. ROCHESTER N Y 14649-0001

'88 my 25 R2:42 MLf af D I lCHROUDIR. jt. *tLEPHONE MC"?T."'... ,,,. ,aw u,. . * * * * * * " "

November 21, 1988 Mr. Samuel J. Chilk Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission WaJhingtw.1, D.C. 20555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Re: Proposed Rulo - Fitness-for-Duty Program 53 FR 36795 (September 22, 1988)

Recuest fpr Comments

Dear Mr. Chilk:

These comments are submitted on behalf of the Rochester Gas &

Electric Corporation in response to the request of the U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") for comments on the NRC proposed * 'e titled Fitness-for-Duty Program (53 FR 36795).

Rochester As & Electric Corporation owns and operates Ginna Station, a 470 MW PWR nuc3 ear power plant which has been in commercial operation since 1969. The company has a comprehensive Nuclear Fitness-for-Duty Program and has cooperatively supported the efforts of the NRC, NUMARC, INPO, EEI and other utility organizations in developing and enhancing such programs, in-cluding chemical testing, within the industry. RG&E commenced chemical testing in January 1985 and has, with the exception of random drug testing, knowledge and experience with the topics covered in the proposed rule.

Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation supporto the Commission's Policy Statement on Fitness-for-Duty of Nuclear Power Personnel that was published in the Federal Recister on August 4, 1986 and recognizes the desire of the NRC to proceed with a rulemaking to supplement its Policy Statement. In general, RG&E supports the proposed rule. Our submittal has been limited to comments that we believe may not have been fully addressed by NUMARC or other utility organizations submitting comments, or are reflective of our unique history and/or operating environment as relating to Fitness for Duty or chemical testing.

Representatives from RG&E attended and participated in both the NRC Public Hearing on October 17, 1988 and the NUMARC Fitness for Duty Workshop on October 20, 1988. Additionally, our Company has 8012010410 881121 FDR 2 03 R36795 g) gg

2 reviewed both the proposed rule and the NUMARC comments (inclu-ding attachments) regarding the rule which are being submitted to the commission on November 18, 1988. Based upon this review, RG&E concurs whh and supporta the NUMARC comments. As we believe that these comments reflect the consensus of the nuclear industry as represented by NUMARC, we urge the Commission to adopt thn suggested specific changes as indicated, and to address those issues which require further study and deliberation.

Additionally, RG&E submits the following comments for Commission review:

1. RG&E wholeheartedly endorses the NUMARC position regarding the inclusion of alcohol in the proposed rule as discussed on page two of the comment cover letter. However, because RG&E does not currently test for alcohol except on a "for cause" basis, we cannot, without farther evidence or study, agree with the NUMARC comment on Page 2A of attachment A, item 5 "(2) Administrative 1y, it would be beneficial to conduct alcohol and drug testing at the same time;". In our opinion, recognizing a problem and taking appropriate action based upon the information are two separate issues and should not, absence further study, be considered as one problem.

2. While RG&E supporta the NUMARC comments regarding the appro-priate relationship between the proposed rule and the DHHS

, "Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs" (53 FR11970), requiring such guidelines for those nuclear companies located in states with existing comprehen-sive drug testing laboratory standards, may penalize those companies and cause unnecessary economic and financial hardship. Pursuant to New York State Public Health Law 12 (1) and 574 effective July 1, 1987, drug testing laborator-les must hold a state permit in Forensic Toxicology and are subject to stringent certification and quality assurance standards. As the New York State program generally paral-1els the DHHS Program, RG&E believes there is no compelling reason to provide absolute lab standardization throughout the country.

Due to the high cost of the National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) annual certification program which cost approximates

$20,000 annually, our drug testing laboratory (located in Rochester, New York) has indicated that due to high cost and i

unnecessary and/or redundant quality control requirements, it will not be able to seek such certification. Consequent-ly, RG&E would be forced to stop utilizing the services of a small local, but high quality lab and seek the services of a large, probably out of stats, lab which processes millions of urine samples per year at a probable higher cost to the company.

i l

k , _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ - -

3 As we believe that the NRC's intent is to not inappropri-ately and materially affect the relationships between the l':ensees and their local and/or state service providers, we recommend that the NRC adopt a provision that authorizes licensees to utilire a drug :sseing lab that either is certified via the DHHS guidelines or is certified under a state program that is generally comparable to the D!IHS program.

3. RG&E supports NUMARC's position regarding random sample testing rates but would like to add a comment to the NUMARC discussion on page 3C, Attachment C - Discussion Question 3. Unlike many companies, RG&E has three rather than two sample populations as discussed by NUMARC in the 2nd paragraph. As 60 percent of RG&E's unescorted access authorized employees are not permanent plant site personnel, and only work at the plant on an intermittent basis or only during the annual 1-2 month outages, two sample populations would inappropriately burden the Company in locating and testing such personnel, or would result in considerable over testing of permanent plant personnel.

Consequently, we urge the Commission to provide considerable flexibility to the licensees in determining the methodology fer administering the suggested 100 percent testing rate.

It would appear that one permissible approach should he to allow licensees to administer the test rate, sample popula-tions, etc., based upon site demographics throughout the year and to ensure that all personnel have an equal on site daily probability of being selected for a test during the year.

An example would be to use a 2 percent testing rate sample size por week based on the total number of people (perman-ent, temporary, contractor) with unescorted access estimated

. or determined to be on site during that week. This would l give everyone on site an equal chance per day but would

, provide appropriate weighting based upon the total site time l per year.

l l 4. RG&E concurs with NUMARC's comments regarding disclosure and I confidentiality as discussed on page 12 B-item 36. However, in the response to Discussion Question 5 on pages SC & 6C, RG&E believes that the disclosure restrictions may be too narrow to encompass the needs and situations of all nuclear l plants. While RG&E does not conduct random testing and would be undecided regarding the conducting of on site drug screening, employee relations concerns in a non-union plant environment would require immediate notification of a designated personnel representative who would be involved in any investigation of the case. Consequently, we would urge the NRC to provide flexibility in this area in accordance I

4 with prudent and legal requirements regarding privacy and confidentiality.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule and would welcome the opportunity to discuss our comments further with appropriate NRC staff personnel. If you have any questions regarding RG&E's comments, please contact Jeffrey W. Peters, Manager - Human Resource Planning & Development at (716) 724-8750.

Very truly y,ours,

/] t)

' 'I i

\ 1 R S t Wilfr d . Schrouder, Jr.

Vice President Vice President Production & Engineering Employee Relations and Public Affairs xc: B. Lee, Jr. - NUMARC R. W. Kober R. C. Henderson J. W. Oberlies  !

D. C. Heiligman W. K. Dillon C. H. Griffith, Jr.

D. J. Irish R. C. Mecredy J. W. Peters T. J. Powell B. A. Snow S. M. Spector G. R. Taylor R. E. Wood