ML20206M827
| ML20206M827 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Trojan File:Portland General Electric icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1988 |
| From: | Cockfield D PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00354, 53FR36795-354, NUDOCS 8812020023 | |
| Download: ML20206M827 (4) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
~f 3W csPLEbiu m
u Portland Ceneral ElechicCormany 88 @ 25 P2 :48 David W. Cockfield %ce President Nuclear November 21, 1988 Trojan Nuclear Plant Docket 50-344 License NPF-1 Secretary of the Comission AT"J: D)cketing and Service Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington DC 20555 Dear Sir's poments or, Proposed Fitness-for-Duty Rule (53 FR 36795) on September 22, 1988, the Comission published for coment (53 FR 36795) it's proposed rule (Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26 (10 CFR 26)) for Fitness-for-Duty.
Portland General Electric (PCE) is pleased to provide coments on tbs proposed rulemaking.
contains some general couents, while Attachment 2 addresses specific sections of the rule.
Sincerely, h
Att4chments c:
Mr. John B. Martin Regional Administrator, Region V U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Me, William T. Dixon State of Oregon i
Department of Energy Mr. R. C. Barr ERC Resident Inspector Trojan Nuclear Plant yh20 023 0033pg 26 53FR36795 pop T S w sawn $reet P:can Cv>m 97?N b bf d
Tr3j n Nuc100r Plcnt S:cr;ttry of th] Commissitn Docket 50-344 November 21, 1988 ticense HPF-1
GENERAL COMMENT
S ON PROPOSED FITNESS-FOR-LUTY RULE I.
The primary purpose of the rule is to deter the use of illegal drugs while minimizing disruption of the work environment.
As such, we strongly support the Nuclear Managemant and Resources Council's (UUMARC) recommandacion contained in a letter from J. F. Colvin (NUMARC) to S. J. Chilk (N3C) dated November 16, 1988 that the proposed 300 percent sample size is excessive and that a 100 percent annual sample size kill be sufficient ts deter illegal drug use.
Random testing is but one tool to be used along with other established prost'ars (i.e., background investigations, psychological screening, employee assistance programs, etc.) to identify personnel who are unfit for duty.
Furthermore, the rule should allow for reducing the sample size once acceptable test results are routinoly obtained.
The r?*..onale for minimizing sample size is that imposing and maintaining high sample sizes on a relatively drug-free Plant could have an adverse effect on opera-tional safety by lowering productielty and morale.
These potential adverse effnets, while hard to quantify, are real and important considerations, i
II.
Thc rule requires each licensee to submit blind performance test specimer4 to the testing facility for analysis.
While we recognize the positive aspects of this requirement for detecting inaccurate testing, we also feel there is a potential negative impact on utility perconnel.
The people involved with putting fake consent forms, signatures, etc., on b.1.ind samples may be influenced nega-tively by their involvement in preparing fake documents. We sug-gest that the personnel involved with preparing the forms for the test specimen should not be the seme as those preparing and/or processing the fake documents.
III. A potential benefit of the new rule is to provide consistency between various lictnsees' Fitness-for-Duty Programs.
This consis-
[
tency not only benefits major contractors who must meet the spack-fic requirements of each licensee where they need unescorted access, but also makes legal challenges to the cutoff limits less vulnerable when everyone is using the same limits.
As the proposed rule now stands, each licensee would be permitted to impinment more stringent cutoff limits than required by the rule.
This defeats a potential benefit of the program and as such, a consensus needs to be re *.hed on proper, ef fective and defendable cutoff levels.
TDW/SAB/DB0/mr 2668W.1188
Trojan Nuclear Plant Secretary of the Cornission Docket 50-344 November 21, 1988 License NPF-1 Page 1 of 2 SPECIFIC COMMENTS BY SECTION ON PROPC7EO FITNFSS-FOR-DUTY RULT Section 26,21La,l[ll The discussion concerning effects of prescription and over-the-counter drums and dietary conditions on drug test results should be et a generic overview level only, since the complexity of an individual condition is best explained by the individual's doctor and is well boyand the intent of the proposed rule.
Section 26.24(a)(11 Clarification is need7d for the phrase "assignment to act tvities within the scope of this part".
Does this refer to the a;signment of contractors to the Technical support Center and Emergency operations Facility?
Our Plant has both an "activs" and "inactive" unescorted access.
Personnel that are "inactive" are blocked by the access computer from having unescorted acesas.
Card keys for remote headquarters employees and contractors are typically made "inactive" until the person comes to the site for one day or moral then they are made "active".
Since both "active" and "inactive" personnel are subject to the random testing, we assume that additional testing is not necessary for personnel being activated.
- ion 26.24(c)
L'e are unsure as to the criteria to use for addine a drug to the list of drugs being tested (e.g., high, medium or. ow local usage).
It is unreasonable to require licensees to set local drug test standards, and we recommend it's removal. Additional rationale for i
it's removal is found in Attachment 1.Section III.
Section 26.27(b)(3)
Clarification is needed on how to process personnel that have l
already been denied access prior to issuanco of the final rule.
We assume that these people will not be "grandfathered" and givsn a clean riste, but rather be entered into the follow-up testing program prescribed af ter the effective date of the rule. The entire scope of Section 26.27 is best left to individual licensee management and should not be prescribed by regulations. We fully support Nuclear Management and Resource Council's r3 commendation for the removal of the entire section from the rule.
Trojan Nuclear Plant Secretary of the Commission Docket 50-344 November 21, 1988 Licensa NPF-1 Page 2 of 2 Section 26.80 The proposed reaudit frequency of 13 months exceeds industry /
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) standards for audits of safety-related equipment vendors, and by comparison, appears excessive.
Our cost estimates for performing such audits on the frequency prescribed is in excess of $330,000 annually.
Furthermore, the estimated audit costs are over three times our estimated cost for testing. We suggest that the reaudit frequency be significantly reduced.
Also, guidance needs to be provided for qualification of auditors.
Appendix. Item 1 The scope of the ri:le should be limited to persons with unsscorted access.
Appendix. Item 2 The additional measures to deter onsite sale, pessession, or use of alcohol and drugs and to achieve early detection shoald be lef t to the discretion of the individual licensee. We feel that these additional measures should be based or. reasonable suspicion rather than blindly implementing random and unanncunced searches which can negatively impact employee morale.
Appendix. Item 3 The data appearing on the form exceeds that necessary for the determination of regulatory compliar.co with the rule.
The manage-ment of the overall Fitness-f or-Duty Program should be lef t with the licensec with NRC overview of the program.
Therefore, this form should not be required, but only serve as guidance to the individual licensees to aid uniformity.
TDW/SAB/ DOS /mr 2668W.1188
-