ML20206M796
| ML20206M796 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kewaunee  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1988 |
| From: | Steinhardt C WISCONSIN PUBLIC SERVICE CORP. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| CON-NRC-88-153, FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00340, 53FR36795-340, NUDOCS 8812010413 | |
| Download: ML20206M796 (7) | |
Text
e NRC-88-153 WPSC I4141433-1598 TELECCPIER (4141433-1297 EASRIN,K,62891993 WISCONSIN PUBUC SERVICE CORPORATION
'C 600 North Adams e P O. Ben 19002
- Green Bay, WI 54307 9002
'88 NOV 25 P12 :10 c ' ~,.:-
Jb
~f3g p 6)yf
{
November 21, 1988 10 CFR 26 53 FR 36795 Secretary of the Commission Attention Docketing and Service Branch V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Gentlemen:
Docket 50-305 Operating License OPR-43 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant Comment on Proposed Fitness For Outy Rule Wisconsin Public Service Corporation participated in the formulation of the com-ments submitted to NRC by the Nuclear Management and Resources Council (NUMARC).
Although WPSC is in general support of NUMARC's comments, we offer the attached additional comments to stress the most significant areas of concern.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on this action and trust that you will consider these comments as well as those provided by NUMARC.
Sincerely, UlU0AO C. R. Steinhardt Manager - Nuclear Power OR/jms
- Attach, cc Mr. Robert Nelson, US NRC US NRC, Region III US NRC, Document Control Desk NUMARC 8012010413 001121 PDR PR 26 D3FR36795 PDR
. Dbl D
ORI.1 Attachment Letter from C. R. Steinhart (WPSC) to Secretary of the Commission (USNRC) dated 11 T'. 88 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED FITNESS FOR DUTY RULE:
Comment 1:
WPSC has developed an effective Fitness for Duty Program using the "EEI Guide to. Effective Drug and Alcohol Fitness for Outy Policy Development."
We recognize that random testing is one method of effective deterrence; however, based on our experience, the disadvantages as described in Comments 13 and 29 prompt us to recommend that the NRC reconsider this requirement of the rule.
Comment 2:
Should the Commission prevail in imposition of rar. dom drug testing, WPSC has a concern with some implementation aspects on which the rule was silent.
The imposition of random drug testing should be clarified to the extent that personnel are subject to testing only while on duty.
It is beyond reasonableness to require personnel to be called in from off-duty, vacation, holidays, weekends and so forth for the sole purpose of chemical testing.
Comment 3: HRC should eliminate all references to impairment in the rule.
There are few nuclear power plant personnel that are qualified to make such a judgment. Thevastmajorit/ofpersonnelarenot medical doctors, psychiatrists, or psychologists.
The rule should base its requirements on the behavioral observation programs intended to detect aberrant behavior independently of cause..
Upon detection of unexplained aberrant behavior, the Utility Fitness, for Duty Program should require a medical assessment as appropriate.
Comment 4: VPSC does not agree with the exciption taken to the rule by NRC representatives (NRC personnel and their contractors).
The fact that the NRC has been unable to implement an equivalent to this rule for all of its employees disparages the sense of fair play and credibility of the NRC and the rule making process.
The NRC's stated performance objective is assurance that nuclear power plant personnel are drug free, yet a vast number of such personnel (NRC employees) are allowed unescorted access with no cossmensurate assurance.
WPSC recommends that the requirements of the final rule be held in abeyance until such time as the NRC fully implements a program at least as imposing as the final form of this rule.
FFD Letter to NRC (Attachment)
Page 2 OR102 November 21, 1988' Comment 5: The Commission requested comment on the inclusion of alcohol and legal drugs (discussion question 6). WPSC recognizes the impact of alcohol abuse in society and recommends that the NRC prescrioe the requirements for alcohol and legal drugs with regard to testing requirements and cutoff levels.
This will remove the questions of legality, cutoff levels and testing procedures.
The sanctions and other management actions.should be left to the utility management.
EEI is preparing a suppleaient to deal with alcohol programs.
Comment 6: 526.2 SCOPE As detailed in Comment 4, WPSC disagrees with the NRC's imposition of requirements on utility personnel that are in excess of that required for NRC personnel.
The NRC should limit the scone of the rule to anyone with unescorted access to the protected area. The categor'ization of TSC/ EOF person-nel is unnecessary and unworkable as a practical matter.
It is unnecessary because all key personnel in decision making positions are granted unescorted access as a part of their normal duties, It is impractical since the number and specific identity of personnel reporting to the TSC/ EOF is unknown. The state and local government representatives,contractsecurityofficers(non-plant), clerical staff, and consultants are not identified a priori and including such personnel in the scope of the rule is impossible to implement.
The scope and impact of this rule cannot be implemented in 90 days.
The NRC should require implementation of the entire rule in no less than 180 da/s.
Comment 7:
526.3 -
As discussed in Comment 3, all references to impairment should be eliminated from the rule.
The definition of "UNANNOUNCED TESTING" should be modified to remove the reference to "random". Unannounced testing is not necessarily performed in a random manner. For example, a pers;n returned to duty after rehabilitation may be subject to periodic unannounced testing, but this is not random.
The definition of a "SUITABLE INQUIRY" is unworkable. The infor-mation on test results and denial uf access is protected information which WPSC will not divulge outside our organization.
It is extremely unlikely that we would in turn have access to such information fres l
other organizations.
As a corporation, we have li;:ited authority to request and obtain such information.
The rule should recognize this and require, at most, "a good faith effort of verification."
l The five-year requirement should be deleted to be consistent with j
and not duplicate requirements in the NRC's Proposed Access i
Authorization Program.
FFD Letter to NRC (Attachment)
ORI.3 Page 3 November 21, 1988 Comment 8:
$26.10 This paragraph should be modified to remove references to impairment and add reference to aberrant behavior as follows:
"(a) Provide reasonable assurance that nuclear power plant personnel are not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, or exhibit aberrant behavior which adversely affects their ability to l
safety and competently perform their duties."
The performance objective stated is unattainable with the lack of a comprehensive NRC program (refer to Comment 4).
Comment 9:
526.20(d)
The phrase "determined to have been involved in the use, sale or possession of illegal drugs" needs to be clarified.
This paragraph could be interrupted to require revocation of access based on "determined" which could mean rumor, allegation or arrest.
The NRC should clearly indicate the criteria for this requirement This requirement presents a dichotomy with Section 26.28 "APPEALS".
A mandatory 14 day revocation of access which could be the result of a false positive test is unconscionable. The result of appeal may be a clean slate, but the damage will already have been done.
The revocation of access will inherently lead to a loss of confiden-tiality, lost wages, and unnecessary damage to reputation.
Immediate revocation should only be mandated for on-site sale, use, or possession or aberrant behavior which could impact safe conduct and operation.
Comment 10: 526.22 All references to escorts should be deleted from the rule.
Sufficient training for escorts is provided as part of the require-ments to obtain unescorted access.
Behavior observation and inter-vention training is not appropriate or effective for short term escort duty.
Comment 11: $20.23 The requiremut for licensees to formally review and approve contractor programs for compliance with this part is excessive and not justified (see Comment 29). A statement of compliance from the contractor in conjunction with program verification by audit (see Comment 28) should suffice.
Paragraph (b) should be deleted.
The requirements of paragraph (a) obviate the need for paragraph (b).
If contractors have implemented a fitness for duty program which meets the requirements of the rule, the personnel supplied to the licensees will, by definition, be fit for duty.
y
FFD Letter to NRC (Attachment)
ORI.4 Page 4 November 21, 1988 Coment 12: 526.24(a)(2)
The NRC should remove the reference to "UNANNOUNCE0" since random testing by definition is unannounced, but unannounced testing is not always randra.
See Coment 7.
Coment 13: $26.24(a)(2)i,11
~
The rate of sample for both Alternative A and Alternative B are excessive, unnecessary, and unjustifiable. As discussed in Cement 1, an effective fitness for duty program has a number of elements, random testing being only one which has been shown effective but not essential.
Should the Comission persist in the requirement for random testing, the rate should be substantially lower, in the 25 percent range, with provisions for increase or decrease based on review of results by management.
Comment 14: 526.24(a)(3)
Testing for cause should be limited to that identified through behavior observation at management's discretion. Proposing to codify the requirement any further is not in the best interest of
{
safety.
Testing after incidents may inhibit investigations of root cause, appear as punishment for mistakes and may inhibit open comunications.
Coment 15: S26.24(a)(4) t Followup testing is not random.
It is periodic, unannounced testing. The NRC should revise th?s paragraph accordingly.
See Coment 7 and Coment 12.
Comment 16: $26.24(b)
The DHHS guidelines are written F r the federal program.
They do not apply to licenses p' w
Imposition of this entire requi.
.eference is, therefore, inappropriate.
The NRC is obligased to extract the applicable l
portions of this guideline and directly implement them in this rule if they can be justified.
Comment 17: $26.24(c)
A stated objective of the rule is consistency among licensee programs. As such, the NRC should specify in the rule the drugs required to be included in the testing program and appropriate cutoffs and eliminate reference to DHHS.
l t
1
FFD Letter to NRC (Attachment)
ORI.5 Page 5 Nov.3ber 21, 1988 Comment 18: 526.25 This paragraph is ambiguous and should be clarified to apply to licensee's permanent employees and not to app'r to contractors or vendors.
The NRC has no authority to establish employment benefits for licensee contractors er their employees.
Comment 19: 526.27 This entire section should be removed from the rule. Management sanctions are exactly that, actions to be taken at the discretion of management and appropriate to the circumstances at hand.
Handatory time periods for revocation of access will interfere with confidentiality as well as the appeal process (See Comment 9).
This paragraph further confuses the issue of contractors, their program requirements, and the licensee's obligations to protect employee and contractor employees' privacy rights.
(See Coment 18).
Comment 20: 526.28 This entire paragraph deals with a management function:
labor relations.
This subject is clearly outside of the NRC's purview.
In addition, the requirement for licensees to be further obligated to extend employee benefits to contractor / vendor employees beyond those which may be currently required by law or contract is outside of the NRC's regulatory authority.
There appear to be a number of areas where the rule conflicts with the NRC's stated desire that the implementation of this rule be "consonant with fundamental principles of due process".
($26.28)
For example, $26.27(b)(1) clearly states a presumption of guilt without due process.
Comment 21: 526.29 This paragraph pays only lip service to the subject of protection of information.
The requirement of $26.70(b)(2) totally negates any protection since the NRC copies of such information are public documents obtainable from the POR or available under Freedom of Information requests. 526.70(b)(2)shouldbelimitedtoinspection only.
Coment 22: $26.71 The records required under this part go beyond the regulator's need 4
to assure the public health and safety.
The data required is "persunnel" information, and management has the responsibility to determine what information it needs and to evaluate and protect such l
information.
The paragraph should delete reference to any NRC data form and any NRC inspection of same.
l l
[
I FFD Letter to NRC (Attachment)
ORI.6 Page 6 Nsvember 21, 1988 Coment 23: 526.73(a)(1)(1)
The requirements of this paragraph are redundant to 73.71, Appendix G, paragraph I(a)(3) and should be deleted.
Coment 24: 526.73(a)(1)(ii)
The requirements of this paragraph are redundant to 73.71, Appendix G, paracrapn I(a)(3) in accordance with Regulatory Guide 5.62, Section C.2.2(3) and should be deleted.
1 Coment 25: 526.73(a)(2)
This paragraph is redundant to and in conflict with the one hour report requirement of Part 73.71.
Coment 26: 526.73(a)(3)
Thisparagraphisredundantto73.71(a)(4).
Coment 27: 526.73(b)
See Coment 23, Coment 24, Comment 25, and Comment 26.
Coment 28: 526.80 The requirement to audit all contractors on a 13-month cycle is excessive and could not possibly be implemented.
The NRC should consider auditing on a three year or five year cycle to be consistent with other licensee audit program requirements.
Comlent 29: Backfit Analysis The imposition of this rule does not support a substantial increase in the protection of the public health and safety nor is it necessary to provide adequate protection to the public health and safety; therefore, a backfit analysis is absolutely required by the Comission.
The Oraft Backfit Analysis does not support the proposed rule in that it significantly underestimates the cost of implementation.
Our experience with the Fitness for Outy Program currently in place (SeeComment1)demonstratesthatinitialemployeetrainingrequired greater than four hours per employee versus the 30 minutes assumed by the staff.
Furthermore, the costs of administration, recordkeeping, and testing have either been ignored or substantially underestimated.