|
|
| Line 17: |
Line 17: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:- | | {{#Wiki_filter:}} |
| c 9
| |
| UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .
| |
| i NUCLEAR REGULATDRY COMMIS SION
| |
| /
| |
| . .q;. .v. J * ~
| |
| . ,. 1
| |
| , -1 ,
| |
| \
| |
| +
| |
| ' Title', ' BPIEFING ON FINAL RULE ON FITNESS FOR DUTY l
| |
| 'liOCatiOII: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
| |
| \
| |
| O ll 0 FEBRUARY 8, 1989 i
| |
| i Pa'aes': ~
| |
| 81 l
| |
| l i
| |
| EAL R. GROSS AND CO., DiC. j t
| |
| COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washingten, D.C. 20005 (202) 234-4433
| |
| \
| |
| \ E- . L i
| |
| \
| |
| 1
| |
| ) < '
| |
| _" 7^ t 1306015,. :-g y g ,' Q ;; ,
| |
| PDR IOFFR PT'., ,- oc l .
| |
| | |
| l O DISCLAIMER l
| |
| This is an unofficial transcript of a meeting of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held on February 8, 1989 .
| |
| In the Commission's office at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The meeting was i
| |
| open to public attendance and observation. This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected or edited, and it may ,
| |
| 1 l
| |
| contain inaccuracies.
| |
| i The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes. As provided by 10 CFR 9.103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed. Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect final determination or beliefs. No pleading or other paper may be filed with l
| |
| the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or addressed to, any statement or argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
| |
| l NEAL R. GROSS i
| |
| court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l 1323 RHoDE 15 LAND AVENUE, N.W.
| |
| (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| w 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
| |
| 4 BRIEFING ON FINAL RULE ON FITNESS FOR DUTY 5
| |
| 6 PUBLIC MEETING y ---
| |
| 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 One White Flint North 10 Rockville, Maryland i
| |
| 11 12 Wednesday, February 8, 1969 13 14 The Commission met in open session, pursuant 15 to notice, at 10:00 a.m., the Honorable LANDO W. ZECH, 16 JR., Chairman of the Commission, presiding.
| |
| 17 18 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
| |
| 19 LANDO W. ZECH, JR., Chairman of the Commission 20 THOMAS M. ROBERTS, Member of the Commission 21 KENNETH C. ROGERS, Member of the Commission 22 KENNETH M. CARR, Member of the Commission 23 JAMES R. CURTISS, Member of the Commission 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE 15 LAND AVINUE, N.W.
| |
| WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 (202) 234-4433
| |
| | |
| . 2-3 1 STAFF AND PRESENTERS SEATED AT THE COMMISSION TABLE i
| |
| 2 SAMUEL J. CHILK, Secretary 3 WILLIAM C. PARLER, General Counsel 4 VICTOR STELLO, JR., Executive Director for Operations 5
| |
| FRANK MIRAGLIA, Associate Director NRR 6
| |
| BRIAN GRIMES, Director Division Reactor and DRIS i 7 l LOREN BUSH, Section Leader 8
| |
| 9 -
| |
| l 10 '
| |
| \ l l l 11 l l
| |
| 12 l
| |
| l 13 l
| |
| 14 l l
| |
| l 15 l l
| |
| 16 17 18 l
| |
| 19 l l
| |
| 20 21 22 23 l
| |
| 24 25 NEAL R. GROSS COURT RIPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 1323 RHODE ISLAND AY!NUE. N W.
| |
| (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
| |
| | |
| a
| |
| * 1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S -
| |
| 2 10:00 a.m.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Good morning, ladies and 4 gentlemen.
| |
| 5 The purpose of today's briefing is for the .
| |
| 6 NRC staff to brief the Commission on the draft final 7 rule on Fitness-for-Duty, which could be applicable to l 8 nuclear power reactor licensees. l 9 The staff briefed the Commission' on the 10 draft proposed rule on Fitness-for-Duty on June 24, 11 1988. Following the briefing, the Commission approved l
| |
| 12 with modifications publication of the proposed rule in 13 the Federal Register for public comment and, because i of the irportance of the rule, requested that; the 14 15 staff provide r, propused fina] rule to the Commission 16 no later then 10 we.eks after the close of the comnent
| |
| ^7 period. And wov3 d like to commend the staff for 18 neeting that che11enge.
| |
| 39 Today's meeting is an information briefing.
| |
| . 2C There will be no vote taken today. The staff has 1
| |
| 21 provided the Commission with the draft final 22 rulemaking on Fitness-for-Duty programs in SECY-89-030 23 and requests that Commission comments by February the 24 17th, ' CEC 25 The Ce 2ssion believes that the nuclear l
| |
| HEAL R. GROSS Co;!RT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBER $
| |
| l 1323 RHODI 15 LAND AVINUE. H W.
| |
| (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 5 1 power reactor licensees should ensure that nuclear
| |
| { 2 power plant personnel are reliable, trustworthy, 3 i mentally and physical fit to perform their duties I
| |
| 4 safely and competently. Nuclear power plant personnel 5 should not be under the influence of ar.y substance, 6 l legal or illegal, which adversely effects their I
| |
| 7 ability to perform their safety related dQties. This 8 was the intent of the NRC Fitness-for-Duty policy ,
| |
| 1 9 statement which resulted in improvements in this area.
| |
| 10 And it is the intent of the draft final rule before 11 the Commission, which we expect will bring additional 12 safety benefits.
| |
| 13 The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, 14 l INPO, reported to the Commission in December 1987 that i
| |
| 15 ; all utilities had a fitness-for-duty program in place.
| |
| 16 l The Commission recognizes and commends the efforts by 17 licensees in implementing fitness-for-duty programs i
| |
| 18 ) and in ensuring that nuclear power plant operations j
| |
| 19 are free of the effects of alcohol and drugs.
| |
| 20 i Much has been accomplished and a lot has 21 ! been learned from the programs that are now in place 22 at the operating nuclear power plants. In fact, it is 23 based on the evaluation of this experience that the 24 Commission has decided rulemaking is appropriate at 25 ; this time.
| |
| i NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE l$i AND AVENUE. N W
| |
| < (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGToN. D C 20005 (202; 232-6600
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -J
| |
| | |
| 6 1 The rule is able to take into account the f 2 many positive aspects of existing training programs 3 and the experiences gained from their implementation, 4 as well as the standards established for the federal 5 government's drug testing program in which NRC is a 6 participant. Although many licensees have excellent 7 fitness-for-duty programs, the Commission is concerned 8 that there are significant differences among licensees 9 in some key program elements. A federal rule could 10 provide uniformity at the desired level by providing 11 minimum program standards.
| |
| 12 For example, not all licensees have been 13 conducting random- testing; some because of union 14 intervention or prohibition by state laws. While the i
| |
| 15 l NRC has always had the authority to deal with any j l
| |
| i 16 l significant fitness-for-duty programs which could j i
| |
| I 17 : adversely effect the operational safety of the plant, i
| |
| 18 the proposed fitness-for-duty rule will establish 19 minimum standards to promote public health and safety,
| |
| . 20 j including a uniform requirement for random drug l
| |
| 21 1 testing.
| |
| I 22 l I am in favor of a drug-free workplace 23 everywhere. In this regard I would like to note that 24 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission took a leadership 25 role in developing a drug testing plan for its own NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 i 1323 RHoDE 15L AND AVINUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-0600 L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
| |
| | |
| 7 1
| |
| 1 employees. NRC's drug testing program is in place and f 2 being implemented today except for random drug testing 3 f or bargaining unit employees in key positions, which 4 will be implemented as soon as matters related to the 5 implementation of the program are negotiated with the 6 l National Treasury Employees Union.
| |
| 7 I understand that the slides for today's 8 briefing are a little late today and they're still 9 coming. And I presume they'll be passed out as soon 10 as they are available.
| |
| 11 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any 12 opening comments before we begin? If not, Mr. Stello, 13 you may proceed.
| |
| 14 MR. STELLO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
| |
| l l
| |
| \'
| |
| 15 I have here with me at the table Frank 16 I Miraglia, Brian Grimes and Loren Bush from NRR. And l
| |
| 17 ! Brian Grimes will be doing the briefing and I'll ask i
| |
| 1 18 l him to introduce some of the key players from our i
| |
| 19 contracter who have helped with this.
| |
| , 20 There's two particular points that I think 21 are important to make to the Commission that I want to 22 make at the outset. One is to assure that there is 23 within the National Institute of Drug Abuse a set of 1
| |
| 24 I standards of which drugs ought to be tested at what 25 levels. As you will note from the comments, we had NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REpoRif RS AND TR AN$CRIBERS l 1323 RHODE 15L AND AVINU[, N W j (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 J
| |
| | |
| 8 1 considerable comment in terms of whether the levels
| |
| ( 2 ought to be lowered or changed in one shape or g
| |
| 3 'another, as well as two drugs which I've identified in l
| |
| 4 the paper that are not now on the list that ought to 5 be added on the list.
| |
| 6 My preference and what I recommend to the 7 Commission is that we ought to let the National 8 Institute of Drug Abuse set those standards and those 9 levels and we ought to get the comments to them and 10 have them work out what ought to be done, not just for ll- the testing program for the nuclear industry, our own 12 as well, but throughout the federal government as well i
| |
| 13 as throughout the rest of the industry.
| |
| 14 ! There are a varie'ty of places within the l
| |
| 1 15 l federal government where drug programs are being put i
| |
| 16 ! into place and I think we ought to have at least a i
| |
| 17 i consistent and uniform table of what drugs ought to be 1E tested and what the appropriate levels ought to be set '
| |
| l 19 for indicating a drug problem.
| |
| ,' 20 I believe we ought to, and we will, get all 21 of the comments related to this matter over to the .
| |
| 22 National Institute of Drug Abuse for their 23 consideration and, hopefully, further revision at some 24 time in the future.
| |
| 25 The second point that I would emphasize is l NEAL R. GROSS 1 I
| |
| court REPoRitR$ AND TRANSCRIBER $
| |
| 1323 RHOD [ 1$ LAND AVINUE, N W
| |
| { (202) 234.4433 WASHtNGToN, D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 i
| |
| | |
| 9 1 that as the Commission is cware, we have cdded the issue of how to deal with alcohol, which is not an f 2 3 i easy issue. I think we are on the cutting edge on 4 that issue as well. And that's one that is not an 1 5 easy issue to resolve. I think we have proposed a way 6 l to deal with that issue that will assure that problemn 7 related to alcohol are identified and properly dealt 8 with and we've, I think, have a sensible program for 9 that purpose.
| |
| 10 But those two points are particular points 11 that I think I would urge the Commission give careful 12 consideration as to hciw we ought to go forward.
| |
| 13 i With that brief introduction of what I think j i
| |
| j 14 !. the two key issues are, I'll ask Brian Grimes to 15 I introduce some people from the contractor's and then 16 I we'll get on with the briefing.
| |
| 17 Brian?
| |
| 18 i CH AIR!!M; ZECH: Thank you very much. You 19 l may proceed.
| |
| l 20 !
| |
| MR. GRIMES: In addition to Mr. Bush, who i
| |
| 21 has been the principal staff on this effort, we have 22 i with us today two people from Battelle Human Affairs 20 Research Center who have played key rolec in the 24 contractor's support for this. And I'd like to l
| |
| 25 l introduce and recognize Doctor Valerie Barnes and NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRAN$CRIBER5 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AYlNU[. N W (202) 234 4433 wA5HINGToN DC 20005 (202 > 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 10 1 Doctor John Olson. Stand.
| |
| f 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much for 3 l being with us today as well as for your assistance on t
| |
| l 4 ; the program, 5 MR. GRIMES: If I could have slide 2. This 6 I is the first one behind the cover pag >e and I'll 7 proceed with the briefing.
| |
| 8 (Slide) 9 MR. GRIMES: That first note that has a ,
| |
| I 10 little bit of history that a general rule requiring 11 fitness-for-duty programs was first proposed in 1982.
| |
| 12 In 1984 the Commission deferred to industry efforts, 13 and in 1986 issued a policy statement establishing a 14 I trial period for evaluation of these efforts. At the 15 , end of this period, in December of 1987, as you 16 '
| |
| mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the Commission decided that 17 ruleraking war, appropriate and after extensive staff 18 work and detailed Commission consideration, a proposed i
| |
| 19 l rule was published on September 22, 1988.
| |
| .' 20 l We have, since that time, held a public 21 I workshop on October 17, 1989 during the comment 22 period. The comment period ended --
| |
| l 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: October 17, 1988.
| |
| i ,
| |
| 24 MR. GRIMES: I'm sorry. 1988. The comment I 1
| |
| 1 25 period ended November 21, 1988. We received a large i
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS court REPoRTIR$ AND TRAN$ CRIB (R5 1323 RHoDE ISL AND AVINVf, N W l (202) 234 4433 W A5HINGToN. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 11 1 number of public comments; there were 378 comment f 2 letters, over 3,000 individual comments when we count 3 those from the public workshop. And when we've 1
| |
| 4 ! compiled those to combine common comments, we ended up t
| |
| 5 with over 800 individual subjects to be addressed. So 6 there was a high degree of interest here and we've 7 tried to take all of those comments into consideration 8 and have made many changes to the rule in response to 9 those comments.
| |
| 10 (Slide) 11 MR. GRIMES: Number 3. This and the next 12 slide indicate the principal issues which are also 13 listed in the same order in the Commission paper. And 14 they include alternatives to random chemical tests, 15 : random testing rates, alternatives to HHS procedural l
| |
| 16 i guidelines, whether or not split samples should be I
| |
| 17 -
| |
| required, the inclusion of alcohol. And then on to i
| |
| I I
| |
| 18 l number 4. l t
| |
| 19 l (Slide)
| |
| ~
| |
| . 20 MR. GRIMES: Cut-off levels for drugs, drugs 21 to be tested, whether or not we should require a !
| |
| 22 record keeping form, whether the scope should be 23 expanded to construction or other areas, date for 24 implementation and how we are going to implement the l
| |
| 25 ; rule. And lastly, the enforcement policies associated l NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 l 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AV[NU[, N W I (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (2021 232-6600 i
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ U
| |
| | |
| i 1
| |
| 12 1 with this. And I'd like to now go through each of f 2 those subjects as they are gone through in the 1
| |
| l 3 Commission paper and respond to any questions in those 4 areas.
| |
| , 5 (Slide) l i
| |
| I 6 l MR. GRIMES: Number 5, Alternatives To !
| |
| l 7 I Random Tests. We believe the alterative effects of 8 random testing based on a reasonable likelihood of 9 detection is well established and one of the key 10 I points of the rule is to enable utilities to conduct 11 random testing. It's one of the chief reasons for I
| |
| 12 issuance of the rule.
| |
| 13 We --
| |
| the staff believes that other 14 ! techniques do not adequately address all the issues 15 that we need to address, which include past -- the l
| |
| 16 potential for past, present or future impairment, l l
| |
| 17 introduction of drugs into the workplace and whether i
| |
| 18 an individual will follow rigorous procedural rules 19 l that are required in the nuclear industry, the l
| |
| 20 l reliability and trustworthiness aspects of this.
| |
| 21 i We therefore recommend continuing as the i l
| |
| 22 l proposed rule did with random testing requirement.
| |
| l 23 (Slide) 24 ME. GRIMES: Slide 6, the Random Testing i
| |
| 25 hates. We've presented five options to the Commission HEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR AN$CRI$f RS 1323 RHoDI ISLAND AVINUI. N W I (202i 234-4433 wA5HINGToN DC 20005 (20? 232 E,(00
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __-_______O
| |
| | |
| 13 1 and recommended option 5. Based on our review of the f 2 information, it appears to the staff that the high 3 ! rate, which is between 200 and 300 percent per year we 1
| |
| 4 believe for the military and the Navy specifically, is 5 not necessarily required for licensees. We think 6 i there's a substantially different type of population 7 and the utilities with random testing in progress have i 8 shown significantly lower positive rates than the l
| |
| 1 l 9 military experience, which we believe illustrates that 10 there is a somewhat different problem involved in I 11 terms of population. But we have retained for 12 l Commission's consideration the five options.
| |
| 13 1 The first two are those that were listed in l
| |
| 14 l the preposed rule, a performance objective of ensuring 15 90 percent per year were tested with a lower testing 16 rate fcr those tested to try to minimize the number of i
| |
| 17 second and third tests of individuals. I 18 ; Option 2 was a straight 300 percent rate.
| |
| i 19 ! Option 3, which we looked at during the 20 ! c o m rn e n t period, was something which would be i
| |
| 21 f equivalent to about a 200 percent rate where an 1
| |
| 22 l individuc.1 would be tested on a particular day and I
| |
| 23 ther. innediately a randomly selected day during the 24 no* ye s: wculd be picked for that individual. That 25 would assure that the time of testing war random, but l
| |
| NEAL R GROSS court REPORT!R$ AND TRANSCRIBER 5 1323 RHoDI 15tAND AVENUI N w a
| |
| (202) 234-4433 WA5HIN0 ton DC 20005 (???. 232 f 600 I
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ ____ _ __ _ ______ ______ _ _ . .i
| |
| | |
| 14 1 that every individual will be tested at least once
| |
| ( 2 during the year. This is somewhat more complex in 3 terms of record keeping and security, and the staff 4 does not recommend this option.
| |
| 5 Option ' 4 is an. option that some utilities l
| |
| 6 I have in place now, at least one utility, the Clinton 7 plant I believe, where they test on an unannounced 8 basis each worker every year and not necessarily 9 random. They make sure that everybody gets tested et 10 some time that the worker does not know about during 11 the year. And then in addition, they have a random 12 rate above that, which I believe in the Clinton case 13 is something like 20 percent. The option presented I
| |
| 14 !
| |
| here would be to test in that way and use a 50 percent 15 rate.
| |
| i i 16 I option 5, which is the one the Commission--
| |
| 17 ' cr the staff recommends to the Commission is a flat 18 rate of about 100 percent per year. We believe that l
| |
| 1 19 l the one utility that is using that has seen only about 20 .5 percent positives per year. It seems to be having 21 a substantial deterrent effect and so we believe that 22 that may be an adequate rate.
| |
| 23 Now, one thing that the Commission may want I
| |
| 24 '
| |
| to consider is that we do not have any good data on I i 1 25 l the rate versus deterrence. And so it's very j i ;
| |
| , NEAL R. GROSS !
| |
| CoVRT RIPoRTER$ AND TRAN$CRIBER$
| |
| 1323 RHOD [ t$ LAND AY!NU[, N W t (202) 234-4433 WA$HINGToN. O C 20005 (202t 2324600
| |
| | |
| 15 1 l difficult -- it's a judgment call to pick a number in f 2 this area. The Commission could set a particular rate 3
| |
| j for two or three years and then have it lowered and l
| |
| 4 -
| |
| then evaluate whether the deterrent effect as measured i
| |
| 5 by the positive test results is the same or less. And 6 I if it's less, then to increase back up to the higher 7 rate. So that is noted in the Commission paper as an 8 i option with any of these -- with any of these rates.
| |
| l 9 l CHAIRMAN ZECH: Before you go on, what was i
| |
| 10 ! your rational for not picking 300 percent?
| |
| 11 MR. GRIMES: Essentially, as noted in the 12 Commission paper, that the deterrence provided by the i
| |
| 13 two to 300 percent rate in the Navy program, for 14 l example, results in about a five percent positive rate 15 per year in terms of testing and an implied rate of 16 even rcre undetected in that program. The Navy 17 believer, perhaps. 15 percent are using -- actually 18 l using, at least occasionally, drugs or alcohol.
| |
| 19 l Sorry--I'- sorry.
| |
| I 20 i Loren, I've forgotten whether they test for 1
| |
| 21 i alcohol, so I may have misspoken.
| |
| 22 ! MR. BUSH: I don't know.
| |
| i 23 l MR. GRIMES: I don't -- I may have misspoken 24 on alcohol.
| |
| 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well the 300 percent testing NEAL R. GROSS CoJRT REPoRTIR5 AND TRANSCRIBER $
| |
| 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202 232-E600
| |
| | |
| 16 1 is -- my understands.ng is that that would' fairly well f 2 ensure that 100 percent of the people got tested at 3 least once a year.
| |
| l 4 MR. GRIMES: Yes.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Some more, but --
| |
| 6 l MR. GRIMES: And some many more times. And 7 the --
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes.
| |
| 9 MR. ' GRIMES: One of the disadvantages to 10 that is even with a 100 percent rate, one or two 11 ind.ividuals may get tested five or uix times during 12 the year. With a 300 percent rate, some unlucky 13 j person could be tested every couple of weeks. So we l
| |
| 14 !
| |
| thought the impact on plant morale and just the taking I
| |
| 15 people away from their work if not required, it would 16 i be better if we could use a lower rate. And the 17 ,' nuclear industry seems to be getting lower rates, of i
| |
| 18 j thosc that are doing random testing, seems to be t
| |
| l 19 l getting lower positive rates with lower testing rates.
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Okay. Why don't you pick i
| |
| 21 l option 4?
| |
| l 22 MR. GRIMES: Option 4 is a viable option.
| |
| 23 It involves some security problems in terms'of keeping 24 l private the -- the data on which a worker is to be i
| |
| 25 tested on an unannounced basis.
| |
| l NEAL R. GROSS
| |
| : COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBER$
| |
| 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVfNU[, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ -___d
| |
| | |
| 17 1 Loran, can you fill in on rational and--
| |
| { 2 MR. BUSH: Yes. The -- I guess the --it's a 3
| |
| perception as to what is the purpose of the random I
| |
| 4 l testing program. And we view it as being primarily a 5 deterrent. And the deterrent value is the perception 6 l on the part of the employees as to whether or not 7 they're going to be tested. So --
| |
| and that it's 8 unpredictable.
| |
| 9 In other words, if -- with any kind of 10 scheduled once a year test, once an employee has been 11 -- had that test, then -- and we've had cases where 12 the employee feels well he's had his test and now he 13 doesn't have to worry about it again, which is why we 14 !
| |
| overloaded with a fifty percent rate. But the 50 j 15 percent rete is not very high frequency as a l
| |
| 16 i deterrent. So I guess we felt that the overall t
| |
| 17 deterrence would be better achieved with a 100 percent 18 rate --
| |
| 19 ! CHAIRMAII ZECH: Okay.
| |
| , 20 MR. BUSH: -- with this option.
| |
| i 21 l COMMISSIOliER CARR: Well, he doesn't know 22 !
| |
| when the second date is coming up.
| |
| I 23 l MR. BUSH: I;o , that's true.
| |
| I 24 COMMISSIOI!ER CARR: It could be the next 25 -
| |
| , day NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AY(NU[. N W 4
| |
| (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (202; 232-f 600 i
| |
| | |
| 18 1 MR. BUSH: That's true. He could make a U-( 2 turn as he comes out of the collection facility.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, let's proceed.
| |
| 4 MR. GRIMES: I would say .that option--
| |
| 5 after option 5, option 4 would be the staff's next 6 l choice.
| |
| I .
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's proceed.
| |
| 8 MR. BUSH: I might point out something so 1 \
| |
| l 9 that everybody understands. The Navy program, their 10 objective is to test 20 percent of the command each 11 month. And I understand in practice that there is !
| |
| 12 something on the order of 10 to 15 percent that are 13 actually randomly tested, that the difference is 14 filled in by command sweep tests, for-cause tests, and t
| |
| 15 reenlistment tests and things of this nature. So l
| |
| 16 l there's -- I think there's some misconception that the i
| |
| 17 Navy is doing a 300 percent per year random test.
| |
| i 18 j CHAIRMAN ZECH: But the testing is very 19 effective.
| |
| 20 MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I presume you know that?
| |
| 22 MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes.
| |
| I 24 MR. GRIMES: It's substantially reduced the i
| |
| l 25 i amount of drug use.
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBER5 l
| |
| 1323 RHODI 15 LAND AVINUE. N.W (202) 234-4433 WASHING 1oN DC 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 19 1 MR. BUSH: Yes. Right.
| |
| ( 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The most recent requirement 3 is less than 2 percent. 2.6.
| |
| 4 MR. BUSH: Yes. 2.2 Yes.
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, let's proceed.
| |
| 6 l (Slide) 7 MR. GRIMES: Slide 8. The alternatives to 8 the HHS procedural guidelines were -- are proposed by 1
| |
| l 9 the staff because of comments that we received that 10 direct application or incorporation of the HHS 11 guidelines would be inappropriate, that they contain I 12 many specific references to federal conditions that 13 didn't apply. 'In addition, they specifically limit 14 drugs which can be tested for without application to 15 ;
| |
| the Secretary of HHS. They do not allow on-site 16 I testing as the initial screening and there is not an l
| |
| 17 ! option in the guidelines to split samples, although I i
| |
| l 18 understand the NRC has -- is rece . ng permission to 19 split samples itself.
| |
| 20 So we have adapted the HHS guidelines as NRC 21 guidelines and have followed the Department of ,
| |
| 22 Transportation in this regard. Department of 23 Transportation has -- has done a similar thing. And 24 in the back of the Commission paper there is a 25 comparative t e r.t of the HHS guidelines, the Department l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE 15L AND AVINV[, N.W
| |
| ! (202) 234 4433 W A $HINGToN DC 20005 (202) 232-f 600 l
| |
| | |
| 80 1 of Transportation guidelines Ond the proposed NRC i 2 guidelines.
| |
| 3 (Slide) 4 MR. GRIMES: Number 9, Split Samples. The 5 staff proposes to allow but not mandate. splitting of 6 l samples, that this could gain some additional 7 confidence in the reliability of the testing process.
| |
| 8 But some of the same conditions which could invalidate 9 a process without a split sample also apply to split 10 samples, particularly anything which could be 4 1
| |
| 1 11 subversion by the testing staff might apply to either 12 nase. So we think there -- it could be used to gain l 13 additional confidence, but it's not absolutely j 14 required to meet the existing guidelines.
| |
| I 15 ! (Slidc) l 16 MR. GRIMES: Number 10. One significant h
| |
| 17 / change fron the rule and something the Commission h
| |
| l 18 ; asked for a specific comment on in the proposed rule 19 was whether alcohol should be included with some
| |
| ," 20 specific -- be specifically addressed rather than only i I
| |
| 21 generally addressed in the rule. And we have proposed 22 that alcohol testing be performed in conjunction with ;
| |
| 23 ,
| |
| testing for other drugs. This is being done now by i
| |
| I 24 some utility programs at present.
| |
| 25 (Slide)
| |
| I t
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS f CoVRT REPORTER $ AND TR ANSCRIBER$
| |
| l l 1323 RHoDE t$L AND AVlNU[, N W l (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGToN. D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 l
| |
| | |
| 21 1 MR. GRIMES: The second -. number 11 f 2 continues with the alcohol discussion. There are two 3 options that are presented to the Commission. First, 4 that in terms of whether or not we specify a cut-off 5 level. First we could specify no cut-off level and 6 recommend that --
| |
| and require that utilities evaluate 1
| |
| 7 any amount of alcohol detected on a test, or the 8 second would be specify a 0.04 cut-off level, which )
| |
| 9 DOT has adopted, and then in addition tell licensees '
| |
| 10 to evaluate any lower amount. This would give an '
| |
| 11 absolute ceiling on the amount that would be I l l 12 considered a positive test. So those are the two '
| |
| 13 options presented.
| |
| l 14 The staff has recommended that a 0.04 cut-I 15 off level be selected.
| |
| l j l
| |
| 16 ! CHAIRMAN ZECH: So this would be --
| |
| these
| |
| [
| |
| 17 ,
| |
| tests would be done at the same time that the drug 18 test was being done?
| |
| 19 MR. GRIMES: Yes. Anytime drug testing --
| |
| , 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Any -- any time.
| |
| 21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And also, I think, 22 for-cause.
| |
| 23 MR. GRIMES: Yes. Same.
| |
| 24 -
| |
| CHAIRMAN ZECH: The number for-cause or for 25 other --
| |
| l' I i NEAL R. GROSS court RIPoRTERS AND TRAN5CRIBER5 132 3 RHoDI ISL AND AVINUE. N W.
| |
| i (202) 234 4433 WA5HINGioN. D C 20005 (202; 232 6600
| |
| | |
| 22 1 MR. GRIMES.: Yes. l I
| |
| (. 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -- reasons, suspicion.
| |
| 3 MR. GRIMES: Yes.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Is that correct?
| |
| 5 MR. GRIMES: That's correct.
| |
| 6 i CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Let's continue.
| |
| . l 7 (Slide)
| |
| )
| |
| 8 MR. GRIMES: Number -- number 12. {)
| |
| 9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Excuse me. On that, 10 does that mean that there would be a blood test or is i
| |
| 11 that --
| |
| 12 MR. GRIMES: No, that's a breathilizer 1
| |
| )
| |
| 1 13 test -- i 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: The breathilizer test?
| |
| I 15 MR. GRIMES: -- but there is a provision 16 l that if the individual is not satisfied, that he be I
| |
| i 17 '
| |
| giv4n the opportunity to have a blood test, which is i
| |
| 18 more clinically accurate.
| |
| 19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
| |
| ." 20 MR. GRIMES: Number 12 continues with the.
| |
| 21 alcohol discussion. And we also require licensees to 22 address an abstinence period, although we have not 23 specified what that period should be, and ask 24 ! licensees to set disciplinary actions. We have not 25 j required the sar.e actions for -- as for drug use. The I
| |
| ; NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT RIPoRTERS AND TR ANSCRIBER$
| |
| 1323 RHoDI 15 LAND AVENUI, N W
| |
| . (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 i
| |
| | |
| l 23 1 other aspect that li'censees must address is the item 2 of call-ins. Somebody has called in. We believe the f
| |
| 3 individual should -- can't have been expected to l
| |
| 4 abstain for the required period, but should be 5 required to declare whether -- that alcohol has been 6 used. If it has been used, and then there should be a 7 licensee procedure to make a decision, conscious 8 decision, on whether to use that individual and under 9 what conditions to use that individual if he has used 10 alcohol and if his services are required. So 11 something like escorted status or breathilizer test to 12 establish what level of impairment might be there.
| |
| 13 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Why did you not choose 14 ; to really take on the abstinence question of that 15 period? Isn't that really something that ought to be, I i
| |
| 16 '
| |
| more or less, a common denominator of alcohol 17 .
| |
| programs? How much variability are we willing to ;
| |
| 1 18 l tolerate in this kind of thing?
| |
| 19 MR. GRIMES: Well, we got varying advice as
| |
| ]
| |
| ,' 20 to the appropriate period and it ranged from eight I
| |
| 21 l hours down to two hours. And we decided that at this i
| |
| 22 point we weren't sure enough of ourselves to come out 23 and say what a good period was that -- we believe 24 there should be some abstinence period, but it's--
| |
| i l
| |
| 25 i alcohol disappears from the blood stream in a fairly
| |
| )
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTER $ AND TRAN$CRIBER$
| |
| 1323 RHOD 1 l$ LAND AVENUE, N W l (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGioN. D C 20005 (?O2) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| I aa 1 rapid rate and you want to make sure people are not--
| |
| ( 2 are not impaired from this source.
| |
| l I
| |
| '3 As far as --
| |
| if I had to pick a number, I 4 ! guess I'd pick something like eight . hours, but we 5 didn't get uniform advice on the exact period.
| |
| 6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: So :ut then you're not 7 going to get uniform proposals from the industry, l
| |
| l 8 either.
| |
| 9 MR. GRIMES: That's -- that's correct.
| |
| 10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And you have to make a 11 decision. On what' basis are you going to make a 12 decision and licensee A --
| |
| I l 13 MR. GRIMES: Well, you -- I 14 ,
| |
| COMMISSIONER ROGERS: -- see A versus 15 licensee B on this.
| |
| * 16 ; MR. GRIMES: At this point, we would go with 6
| |
| 1 17 l the -- whatever the licensees selected and --
| |
| 1 18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, suppose they 19 picked something that's ridiculous, in our opinion?
| |
| . 20 Do we go with that?
| |
| 21 MR. GRIMES: No, we --
| |
| 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And then what's the 23 basis for deciding it's ridiculous?
| |
| 04 , MR. GRIMES: I would guess the --
| |
| 1 25 l COMMISSIONER CARR: Aren't there other NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTER $ AND TRAN$CRIBER$
| |
| l 1323 RHoDE l$ LAND AVENUE. N W i (202) 234 4433 WA$HINGToN O C 20005 (202) 232-6600 4
| |
| | |
| l 25 l
| |
| 1 programs that use eight hours? l
| |
| ( 2 MR. BUSH: The FAA has --
| |
| 3 MR. GRIMES: Yes, the FAA.
| |
| 4 MR. BUSH: -- for their expectation, pilots 5 abstain eight hours before serving as a crew member, 6 yes.
| |
| l 7 MR. GRIMES: A long -- a long time period is 8 -- is also difficult to -- to enforce and you may get 9 a lot of allegations --
| |
| 10 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, but these are 11 all the problems and we know it's a problem area.
| |
| 12 MR. GRIMES: Yes. )
| |
| i 13 i COMMISSIONER ROGERS: There's no question l
| |
| 14 that these are problems. But aren't we just ducking l
| |
| 15 the issue of making a decision here and putting it
| |
| {
| |
| i 16 ! back someplace else when we really ought to -- to i
| |
| 17 decide what the reason is? How much variability are i
| |
| I 18 i we willing to tolerate and --
| |
| I 19 MR. BUSH: There were a number of suggestion
| |
| .' 20 that we not even have an abstinence period in the 21 rule. That the abstinence period is a tool for 22 achieving the 0.04 cut-off level or less that we--
| |
| 23 you now, adhering to that. I 24 3 MR. GRIMES: And one could_ provide adequate i
| |
| i 25 I guidance to -- the abstinence is kind of a form of I
| |
| l NEAL R. GROSS I
| |
| COURT REPORTER $ AND TRAN$CRIBER$
| |
| 1323 RHODI i$L AND AYlNU[, N W.
| |
| } (202) 234-4433 WA$HINGToN. D C 2000$ (2021 232-6600 i
| |
| | |
| 26 1 guidance to employees. Even the eight hour period
| |
| ( 2 does not ensure that somebody who has drunk --
| |
| 3 MR. GRIMES: -- heavily will not exceed 0.04 4 at the time he reports to work or an individual --
| |
| 5 MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| 6 MR. GRIMES: -- can .have variability in 7 response to alcohol. So it's not an absolute 8 assurance that -- it's more of a guidance that you 9 should use -- certainly not use alcohol in excess and i
| |
| 10 that you should abstain for some period to try to. I l
| |
| l 11 ensure that you do not have significant amount of l 12 alcohol in you:: blood at the time you report to work.
| |
| 13 Some licensees also have much tighter rules 14 , than 0.04. Some with any evidence of alcohol on 15 ! reporting to scheduled work would take action against 16 I the employee So it's a -- that is a variable area 17 ", also.
| |
| i 18 j It was a new area to us and we --
| |
| 19 MR. MIRAGLIA: I think given the fact that 20 we took a 0.04 cut-off level, we were at a view that 21 since there is that variability, 0.04 abstinence--
| |
| 22 for some individuals two hour abstinence would get you 23 to that, others would be, perhaps, longer periods.
| |
| 24 With the cut-off level we felt that we need not speak 1
| |
| 25 ! to the abstinent level, other than saying that there 1
| |
| l l NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTER $ AND TR AN$CRIBER$ ]
| |
| , 1323 RHoDE 1$L AND AVINUE. N W '
| |
| i (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (2021 232 6600 !
| |
| ! 1 l
| |
| | |
| 27 1 should be one and there should be some guidance to the
| |
| ( 2 employees as to what abstinence would mean in 3 achieving that normal. And I think that's where--
| |
| 4 that's how we came out.
| |
| 5 MR. STELLO: I think the bottom line is that 6 I there is no strongly held feeling on the issue and 7 certainly we would not object at all if the 8 Commission, as a matter of policy, included abstinence 9 for a period of eight hours, recognizing that, you 10 know, we are suggesting that ought to be the right 11 policy.
| |
| 12 The difficulty we're going to have and the l 13 l licensee will have is in trying to administer 14 enforcing the policy, which is going to be extra 15 I ordinarily difficult, nigh on impossible. Someone i 16 whose --
| |
| {
| |
| i 17 1 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Isn't it going to be l
| |
| 18 more difficult, though, if they all choose a different 19 one than if there is a --
| |
| , 20 MR. STELLO: No matter which one is chosen.
| |
| 21 My point is that enforcement will be an extremely 22 difficult issue and I have no problem with suggesting 23 that as a uniform matter we suggest or require in the 24 rule that all licensees will adopt a period of eight 25 l hours of abstinence as the basis to move forward.
| |
| l
| |
| ! NEAL R. GROSS i CoVRT REPORTER $ AND TR AN$ CRIB (R$
| |
| 1323 RHoDI 15 LAND AVINUI, N W I (202) 234 4433 WA$HINGToN. D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600
| |
| | |
| 28 1 We don't --
| |
| there's no really strongly held
| |
| ( 2 view. It's a very difficult call as a policy matter, 3 you know, in the commission's deliberation whatever 4 you come out -- you know, with the final judgment 5 ought to be.
| |
| 6 There's no strongly held view, there's -- we 7 were not able to gather anything which would tell us 8 the right answer. And the only thing I see as 9 precedent already set for pilots, as I recall, for --
| |
| 10 MR. GRIMES: FAA.
| |
| 11 MR. STELLO: -- to abstain eight hours. And i
| |
| 12 that seems like a reasonable approach. We certainly 1
| |
| 13 would not have a problem with that.
| |
| 14 I CHAIRMAN ZECH: I guess one --
| |
| one l
| |
| ! l 1
| |
| 15 I consideration, or perhaps you did consider it, would 1
| |
| l I l 16 l be in case of emergencies. I recognize that this is--
| |
| 1 <
| |
| l 17 1 this whole abstinence question is not an easy one 1
| |
| 18 because if FAA has it, they usually know when they're 19 going to fly and they can have -- schedule. Our
| |
| , 20 people also have a schedule, generally speaking, but 21 there could be an emergency situation that I suppose 22 could discourage somebody from -- who might have had 23 one beer from coming in and helping in the emergency 24 where he might have, you know, even if it was seven
| |
| ~
| |
| 25 hours age or something that, you know, feel he
| |
| , NEAL R. GROSS i court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISL AND AY[NUE, N W I (202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202i 232-6600 l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| .y 29 l
| |
| 1 shouldn't do that.
| |
| q f 2 So I recognize that it isn't easy, but it 3 seems to me that the abstinence part should at least 4 l be considered. Did you discuss or consider the 1
| |
| 5 emergency situation where you might call people in?
| |
| 6 MR. GRIMES: Yes. We did specifically speak 7 to call-ins and say licensees must have th'e individual 8 declare whether he has used and then have a procedure 9 to decide whether or not to use that individual.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The judgment call?
| |
| 11 MR. GRIMES: Yes.
| |
| 12 MR. STELLO: Under no circumstances did we ;
| |
| 13 want to preclude having a licensee prevented from 14 l calling in people with particular expertise that may i
| |
| 15 , have consumed some alcohol and say he's not able to 16 I come in. He may be the best individual to deal with a 17 particular issue. We wanted to be sure that the I
| |
| 18 i licensee was not precluded from using those 19 ; individuals. That, perhaps, is the -- i 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: You might have to have some 21 kind of a special provision for someone who says --
| |
| 22 MR. STELLO: And we have.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -- he's had something to 24 drink. Come in and get --
| |
| l 25 l MR. STELLO: And the important thing is --
| |
| ! NEAL R. GROSS
| |
| ! court REPORTERS AND TRAN$ CRIB (R$
| |
| 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AV(NU(. N W I (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGioN. D C. 20005 (202; 232 f 600
| |
| | |
| 30 1 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -- inspected and --
| |
| f 2 MR. STELLO: Well, the individual tells the 3 licensee when he's called in. "Yes, I've had--
| |
| 4 consumed alcohol."
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Uh-huh.
| |
| 6 MR. STELLO: And he has to make the judgment 7 on it. You know, "I'm -- I've had too much, I can't 8 do it. But no, I have -- I'm not impaired but I have 9 used alcohol" and then supervisor has to make the 10 judgment that for the purpose --
| |
| 11 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But the supervisor makes the 12 judgments. Somebody --
| |
| 13 MR. STELLO: Yes.
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -- I presume, on duty makes 15 f the judgment.
| |
| i 16 l MR. STELLO: Yes. That's correct.
| |
| l 17 I CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, you considered all l
| |
| 18 these things, I take it?
| |
| 19 MR. STELLO: Yes, sir. That's a very
| |
| +
| |
| 20 important point, too.
| |
| 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let's proceed then.
| |
| 22 MR. GRIMES: I would just note for the last 23 item on page 12 is that there will be a reporting of 24 alcohol events as for drug events for licensed I
| |
| I 25 i operators and supervisors.
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TR ANSCRIBf R$
| |
| 132 3 rho 0! ISL AND AVINUl, N W.
| |
| (202) 234 4433 WA$HINGToN. D C 2000$ (202) 232 6600 -
| |
| | |
| 31 1 COMMISSIONER CARR: Why did you limit it to
| |
| ( 2 licensed operators and supervisors?
| |
| 3 MR. GRIMES: We felt that in most cases we 4 would like the licensee to take care of these fitness 5 problems throughout his plant that occur on a day-to-6 day basis and that the NRC doesn't need to know on a 7 real time basis. We can go out and inspect them.
| |
| 8 COMMISSIONER CARR: It's going to screw your 9 data- You're going to come back and tell me it's a 10 very low percentage and all I'm going to say it's a 11 very low percentage of operators and supervisors.
| |
| 12 MR. GRIMES: No. I think when we go out and 13 inspect, we wi'11 identify the total percentages.
| |
| 14 Those will be kept in licensee records and we -- but l
| |
| 15 ,
| |
| as far as deportability, the only ones we wanted to 16 really hear about are the ones that we might want to l l 1 ~7 follow individually.
| |
| 1 i
| |
| 18 l
| |
| COMMISSIONER CARR: But they'll all be 19 recorded?
| |
| 20 MR. GRIMES: Yes. And --
| |
| l !
| |
| 21 i MR. BUSH: But there's a difference here.
| |
| l .
| |
| 22 This is talking about a report that's made promptly 23 after the event and then the rest of the data is l
| |
| 24 something that can be gathered --
| |
| 25 l COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Twenty-four hours or
| |
| ! NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT RipoRTER$ AND TR ANSCRISER$
| |
| 132 3 RHoDE 15L AND AV[NUf, N W.
| |
| 4 (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C 20005 (2021 232-6600 l
| |
| | |
| 32 1 something? During a 24 hour period?
| |
| MR. BUSH: j f 2 Well, one of the things we talked 3 about, and maybe we'll get into it later, was there 4 l was some interest on the part of staff to have the 5 data provided -- summary data provided periodically, 6 l once every six months or once a year. And that's 7 something that we'll get into later.
| |
| 8 MR. GRIMES: Yes, we'll cover that later.
| |
| 9 (Slide) 10 MR. GRIMES: The Cut-off Levels For Drugs, i 1
| |
| 11 number 13. As Mr. Stello discussed, there are a i
| |
| l 12 couple of drugs for which from a technical standpoint l
| |
| l 13 it would be preferable to have lower levels and, in i 14 fact, licensees, number 14 --
| |
| \ l 15 1 1
| |
| (Slide) l 16 MR. GRIMES: -- have found a number of their l 17 -- c large number of their marijuana positives to be l'
| |
| 18 below the HHS cut-off levels of 190 ng/ml. So there 19 seems to be a reason to press on this issue and the 20 choice, which Mr. Stello has recommended, is that we 21 ask NIDA and the HHS to come up with what their .
| |
| 22 judgment is on how far these ought to be lowered.
| |
| 23 (Slide) 24 ME. GRIMES: We do -- number 15 -- pose 1
| |
| 25 l deferring to the expertise at this time of HHS and l NEAL R. GROSS
| |
| ! COURT REPoRTIR$ AND TR AN$CRl8[R$
| |
| ! 1323 RHoDE ISL AND AY[NUf, N W.
| |
| (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON DC 20005 (202l 232 6600
| |
| | |
| 33 1 NIDA and propose bringing to their attention the
| |
| ( 2 information we've developed through the nuclear 3 programs that are in place and in the meantime, adhere 4 to the HHS cut-off levels.
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER CARR: Why don't we take 6 advantage of what we already know as long as we know 7 it? If we're getting 80 percent -- 70 to 80 percent 8 of the positives at a lower level, we ought to check 9 at a lower level.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Anything to prevent us from '
| |
| 11 doing that?
| |
| 12 COMMISSIONER CARR: No.
| |
| 13 MR. GRIMES: No.
| |
| .r 5
| |
| 14 MR. STELLO: No. I think that to cause the 15 NRC to start to take the place of performing the 16 function of NIDA is not the best thing. You could l
| |
| 17 I have federal agencies developing a whole variety of .
| |
| I i
| |
| 18 cut-off levels that are all different.
| |
| l 19 COMMISSIONER CARR: And we can set the rules 20 we want to to protect public health and safety.
| |
| 21 MR. GRIMES: Excuse me.
| |
| 22 MR. PARLER: Certainly on the basis of our--
| |
| 23 the agency's experience, etcetera, etcetera, it's this 24 agency that has the responsibility, not NIDA or anyone i
| |
| 25 l else. So I would certainly think that if we're NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $
| |
| 1323 RHoDI 15L AND AVENUl. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 1
| |
| | |
| 34 1 dealing in our own area with a problem and'information
| |
| { 2 that we know about, that people would really be way 3 out in left field if they would interpret that as us 4 trying to do NIDA's job.
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER CARR: And if you tell me we're 6 going to miss 70 to 80 percent of the people by not 7 having a lower level, then I'd like to lower the 8 level.
| |
| l 9 MR. STELLO: That's the thing, that's true 10 for our own program. And --
| |
| t 11 COMMISSIONER CARR: Fine. If you'd told me 12 that then, I'd have lowered that one.
| |
| 13 MR. STELLO: Well, I'm not so sure we can by 14 I law lower that one, the one that applies to us.
| |
| 15 COMMISSIONER CARR: Fight that in court.
| |
| l I
| |
| 16 i MR. STELLO: It seems to me that a more i
| |
| 17 ! desireable way to proceed is to let NIDA, who was i
| |
| i 18 i charged by the federal government, has the expertise i
| |
| 19 and the confidence to set those standards and not have 20 other federal agencies -- I don't think that the NRC l 21 has anything that I would advance as particularly 22 expert in making these judgments. That's with NIDA, 23 that's where I think it ought to be. That's my l 24 , recommendation.
| |
| i 25 The Commission, of course, I think if it l NEAL R. GROSS j CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRAN5CRIBERS i 1323 RHODI 15 LAND AVINUE N W.
| |
| i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202i 232 6600 i
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ m
| |
| | |
| 35 1 wishes, it can set ' any lower standard it wish, it f 2 could add the other drugs that have been recommended 3 if it wishes. I think we're free to do that. As a 4 l matter of policy, I just don't think it's the right 5 way to go and don't recommend going that way. I would 6 leave it to the federal agency where those experts 7 are.
| |
| 8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Isn't that the range, 9 the 20 to 100 range, where you're running into the 10 fullest positive problem? Isn't that -- didn't I read -&
| |
| 11 in some of your materials here that there are a number 12 of so-called false positives that show up in the
| |
| < 13 !
| |
| testing at greater than 20 but less than 100?
| |
| l
| |
| (' i 14 ! MR. BUSH: I think you're talking about the i
| |
| a 15 j passive inhalation issue, and --
| |
| 16 l COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No, not just that.
| |
| I 17 Other substances that would show up as false marijuana i
| |
| 18 ;
| |
| 19 MR. BUSH: Close reactions. Well, that's 20 true with any of the substances of the drugs being 21 tested --
| |
| 22 COMMISSIONER CARR: We're only talking one 23 substance, aren't we?
| |
| l 24 MR. GRIMES: Marijuana. Two substances.
| |
| 25 MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTER 5 AND TR AN5CRIBER5 1323 RHoDi 15L AND AVENUI. N W (2021 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (2021 232 6600
| |
| | |
| 36 1 MR. GRIMES: Marijuana primarily for the
| |
| ( 2 higher rates of positives, but also-amphetamines --
| |
| 3 MR. BUSH: Yes. On the passive inhalation,
| |
| * 4 there are studies where under a laboratory setting, 5 we're talking a room of 8 x 10. where there were like 6 l 16 marijuana cigarettes smoked and people passively 7 inhaled the smoke and after a couple of days they 8 started showing positive results.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: At what levels?
| |
| 10 MR. BUSH: At the 20 nanogram levels.
| |
| 11 Basically, the way it works out, is the smoke of 16 12 marijuana cigarettes passively inhaled is pretty 13 equivalent to active smoking of one marijuana J
| |
| l 14 cigarette.
| |
| 15 i COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes, well that's not j 16 i the problem I'm worried about.
| |
| l l
| |
| 17 i COW:ISSIO"CP ROGEM : You know, I'm not too i
| |
| 18 concerned about that, I think. If that shows up, that 19 may be pretty good because somebody's keeping bad 20 company.
| |
| 21 MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: But I'm -- I -- I'm 23 concerned about the problem of false positives coming 24 from other substances..that show up in this -- in 25 this--
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS foURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDI ISLAND AV[NU[, N W j (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGToN. D C 20005 (202; 232-6600 l .
| |
| | |
| 37 l l
| |
| * l 1 MR. BUSH: The poppy seeds. J f 2 MR. GRIMES: And there may be more in those 3 ranges.
| |
| l 4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Poppy seeds, other i
| |
| 5 over-the-counter and nonprescription drugs and
| |
| {
| |
| l 6 I prescription drugs.
| |
| 7 MR. GRIMES: Yes.
| |
| 8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: If I recall what I've 9 read here in your materials, is that's where you begin 10 to see those things turn up greater than 20 but less 11 than 100 nanograms.
| |
| 12 MR. BUSH: Tne cut-off levels for the 13 j legitimate drugs should have --
| |
| l 14 l MR. GRIMES: And they're different cut-offs, 15 l don't forget. 4 i
| |
| 16 l MR. BUSH: --
| |
| any legitimate medical l
| |
| 17 I purposes, the cut-off levels are above the normal i
| |
| 18 therapeutic doses. So we -- you know, from that l
| |
| 19 aspect you wouldn't be collecting people who were
| |
| . 20 taking cough medications and things of that nature as 21 long as --
| |
| 22 MR. GRIMES: I guess --
| |
| 23 COMMISSIONER CARR: Well each substance has l 24 a different cut-off level and it's --
| |
| I i
| |
| 25 ,
| |
| MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| j NEAL R. GROSS l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISL AND AVINUE. N W.
| |
| l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, O C, 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 38 1 MR. GRIMES: Could I just --
| |
| COMMISSIONER CARR: The one we're talking
| |
| { 2 i
| |
| 3 about here where they're catching people at 70 to 80 i I'
| |
| 4 percent are just these two particular substances that 1
| |
| 5 we want to lower the cut-off level from the HHS 6 i Guidelines?
| |
| 7 MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| 8 MR. GRIMES: Yes. If I could make two 9 comments --
| |
| 10 COMMISSIONER CARR: Some of us might want 11 to.
| |
| 12 MR. GRIMES: First, the cross reaction only 13 applies to the initial screening and does not apply to 14 I the gas chromatographic confirmatory test. So the l
| |
| 15 ! cross reaction false indication does not get through--
| |
| 16 all the way through the process. So there may be 17 additional --
| |
| l l
| |
| 18 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes.
| |
| 19 MR. GRIMES: --
| |
| items sent to the lab --
| |
| 20 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes. i 1
| |
| l 21 MR. GRIMES: -- is the effect here rather ,
| |
| 22 than additional number falsely identified through the 23 whole process, l ,
| |
| 24 l I guess the second point is we have at least !
| |
| 25 one utility that said on their drug testing, they get NEAL R. GROSS COURT RERORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $
| |
| 1323 RHODE l$ LAND AVINU[. N W I (202) 234-4433 WA5HINGTON. D C 20005 (202i 232-E.600 l j
| |
| | |
| l 39 l
| |
| l e 1 a very high rate, almost 100 percent rate, of f 2 confessions or admissions to drug use when they face i 3 people with these test results so we have no real l
| |
| 4 experience of falsely accusing people in this area.
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Is NIDA looking at 6 l this issue now and is not --
| |
| l 7 MR. BUSH: Oh, yes. Yes. This was an issue 8 that was raised during the comment period on the HHS 9 Guidelines. My understanding is that the HHS or NIDA 10 specifically set the cut-off levels for marijuana l
| |
| l 11 where they did because they envisioned a testing
| |
| { '
| |
| 12 program nationwide that was going to be applied to i
| |
| 13 several millions of people. And they were looking at 14 ! the potential impacts on the laboratories. And the 15 problems are not so much with the accuracy of . the l
| |
| i 16 1 test, but potential laboratory errors. And they felt l,
| |
| 17 l that the more specimens that needed to be processed I
| |
| 18 l for the confirmatory testing, then the greater the 19 potential there was for laboratory errors. So they 20 set the cut-off levels initially at -- for marijuana 21 at 100 nanograms really to limit the number of-22 presumptive positive tests that would have to go 23 through the confirmatory testing procedure.
| |
| 24 Doctor Walsh, whose the Director of the i
| |
| 25 ! Office of Workplace Initiatives and the grandfather, i
| |
| ! NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTER $ AND TR ANSCRIBERS I
| |
| l 1323 RHoDE 15 LAND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202i 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 40 1 if you would, of the HHS Guidelines, said that yes
| |
| ( 2 they are planning on lowering the cut-off levels for 3 ! marijuana after they've gathered enough data on the 4
| |
| laboratory experiences with the federal program.
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Do we have a feel for 6 l how long that would take?
| |
| 7 MR. BUSH: He said sometime this year, but 8 that -- I would not bet on that.
| |
| 9 MR. STELLO: Could I just repeat, Mr.
| |
| 10 Chairman, I feel uncomfortable with placing the NRC in 11 a position to try on a scientific and policy basis to 12 defend setting levels different than the agency in the 13 federal government, NIDA, - ponsible for that. And 14 j you've heard of some of the kinds of judgments that go 15 ,
| |
| in there. I feel awful uncomfortable coming forward l
| |
| 16 ) and telling the Commission we have the kind of 17 understanding and expertise within the Commission to 18 i make those kinds of judgments. And that's why I made 19 the recommendation I did.
| |
| l 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Al? right. We appreciate 21 that.
| |
| 22 ! MR. STELLO: It makes me feel very 23 j uncomfortable.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let's proceed.
| |
| I 25 (Slide)
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTER $ AND TRANSCRIBER $
| |
| 132) RHoDI 1$L AND AVENU[. N W i (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGToN. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 1 41 1 MR. GRIMESi Okay. Number 16, Mr. Ste11o's l
| |
| f 2 comment apply exactly to this next topic also, which 3 is whether we add-drugs in addition to alcohol to the 4 l panel of five that HHS lists. The staff had proposed l 5 on a technical basis that benzodiazepines and l l 6 barbiturates being substances which are commonly i 7 abused, particularly in connection with alcohol use, 8 should be added from a technical standpoint to the 9 protocol. While we do encourage licensees to test for l
| |
| 10 other drugs --
| |
| 11 (Slide) {
| |
| 12 MR. GRIMES: -- number 17 --
| |
| 13 i COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Are those two over-l 14 the-counter or are they all prescription?
| |
| l I
| |
| 15 l MR. BUSH: Both.
| |
| i 16 1 MR. GRIMES: They can be both.
| |
| I 17 MR. BUSH: They're very commonly abused, as l
| |
| 18 ,
| |
| Erian said, and my understanding is most licensee j
| |
| ! i I
| |
| 19 programs currently include these-drugs.
| |
| .' 20 MR. GRIMES: And the recommendation is 21 there, number 17 also, that we bring this -to the 22 attention of HHS and NIDA and ask them to make a 23 determination on adding these drugs rather than having 24 the NRC out front in this matter.
| |
| I 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Stello, do you agree
| |
| ! NEAL R. GROSS I
| |
| CoVRT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRistR$
| |
| i 132 3 RHoDI ISL AND AVlNU[, N W -
| |
| l 1202) 234-4433 WASHINGioN. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 j
| |
| | |
| 42 1 with that recommendation?
| |
| { 2 MR. STELLO: That is my recommendation.
| |
| 3 Yes.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: It was my understanding that 5 there was a discussion on.that amongst the staff and a 6 l kind of a debate as to whether or not they should be 7 included.
| |
| l l
| |
| 8 MR. STELLO: I guess I ought to let Brian 1
| |
| 1 9 speak for our staff.
| |
| I 10 MR. GRIMES: Yes. I think it is the same 11 condition as applies to the cut-off levels. From a 12 technical standpoint we believe they should be added.
| |
| 13 But the policy consideration, I defer to Mr. Stello on 14 ,
| |
| the policy considerations.
| |
| l 15 !
| |
| CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, in your recommendation I
| |
| 16 i you recommend they should be added, is that --
| |
| 17 ! MR. STELLO: No, I recommend they not be l
| |
| 18 added. That we refer to NIDA as to if they ought to l
| |
| 19 be added and how because that's where I believe the 20 expertise lies with making these judgments, and I do l 21 not want to place us in a position -- l 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes. I just wanted to 23 clarify that.
| |
| ll 24 MR. STELLO: Yes, sir.
| |
| i I
| |
| l
| |
| .75 , CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think I understand.
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS ;
| |
| CoVRT REPORTER $ AND TR AN$CRIBER$
| |
| i 1323 RHoDE t$L AND AV[NUE. N W 4 (202) 234 4433 WA5HINGToN. D C 20005 (202) 232 6600
| |
| _ _ . - _ _ . _ _ _ _ - - -__ D
| |
| | |
| 43 1 COMMISSIONER CARR: Would NIDA work any
| |
| ( 2 faster if we put them in?
| |
| ]
| |
| 3 MR. BUSH: Whatever it is we want them to do l
| |
| 1 4 in our rule, and NIDA has no authority to tell us to ;
| |
| 1 5 take it out. I think what Mr. Stello is really I 6 talking to is the concern about comparability between 7 what we're asking the industry to do and what we have 8 already expected government wide, and in particular 9 with our own employees.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, let's proceed.
| |
| 11 MR. GRIMES: Okay.
| |
| 12 (Slide) 13 MR. GRIMES: Number 18. The proposed rule )
| |
| 14 l had a proposed record keeping form. Most respondents 1
| |
| 15 asked for a deletion of the form. We believe there is l
| |
| 16 l a benefit to collecting data in a standard format to 17 .
| |
| assure that the right data is collected from everyone 18 and to facilitate analysis and auditing of the 19 programs. j 20 (Slide) 21 MR. GRIMES: Number 19. We did talk to 22 NUMARC about this and they are developing some 23 detailed guidelines which -- for implementation which i
| |
| 24 '
| |
| include a standard data collection form. And so at l
| |
| 25 l this point the staff has not included the standard i
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS
| |
| ; COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDI ISLAND AVENUI. H W j (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 44 1 form in the rule itself. If the NUMARC effort is not
| |
| ( 2 timely or adequate ir terms of collecting this data on 3 an industry wide basis, then the staff would propose 4 additional action. But at this point if the industry 5 will agree to --
| |
| on a uniform basis to collect this 6 data, there may not be a reason to put a specific form 7 in the rule itself.
| |
| 8 COMMISSIONER CARR: Well, what's wrong with 9 that form?
| |
| 10 MR. GRIMES: Well, one of the things that is 11 wrong with putting a rule --
| |
| a detailed form into a 12 rule is it's hard to -- hard to change. The -- we 13 were -- I guess the industry form, that draft form-l i 14 that we sav in a meeting a few weeks ago, differed l
| |
| 15 l from our forr. in some detail and, Loren, can you l
| |
| l 16 : remember what -- what it didn't have?
| |
| 17 MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| 18 j MR. GRIMES: I think it spoke to most of the 19 l areas of concern to us and looked like a fairly good I
| |
| 20 j effort, l
| |
| 21 MR. BUSH: Yes. It didn't give a detailed 22 breakout of the -- what we refer to as the pro-active 23 efforts. And the reason we had included that in our 24 initially proposed form was trying to understand the 25 impacts of sor.e of the things that the licensees might i
| |
| ! NEAL R. GROSS COURT RERoRTER$ AND TRAN$CRIBER$
| |
| l 1323 RHoDE ISL AND AVENU[, N W i (2c25 234-4433 wA$HiNoToN. D C 20oo3 (Pori 232 6600 i
| |
| | |
| 45 1 do on the overall program. For example, if they were f 2 doing searches of the workplace or they were using 3 drug detector dogs, there was no requirement that they 4 do so but if they were, we wanted to understand that 5 the reason they were having, if they were, rule or --
| |
| 6 l COMMISSIONER CARR: Somebody --
| |
| 7 MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| 8 COMMISSIONER CARR: Somebody reports zero, 9 you.had a reason to figure out why, huh?
| |
| 10 MR. BUSH: Yes. And then we also had some
| |
| * 11 detailed breakout o'n the experiences of the employee 12 assistance program. Our purposes there was to -- the 13 term that's used in that particular discipline is the 14 penetration rates as to how many people come forward 15 so refer in the program. And so you get some feeling i
| |
| 16 as to how successful that effort is.
| |
| 17 So that's the primary differences.
| |
| I 18 l MR. GRIMES: But I think -- I wouldn't like I
| |
| 19 to keep the rule to the -- we have a very --
| |
| fairly
| |
| ,' 20 prescriptive appendix now which specifies the things '
| |
| 21 we need to -- we think need to be specified to protect i
| |
| I 22 employees. But to the extent we cannot put detail in 23 the rule, it may be better to allow the industry to 24 take some initiative and try to collect this 25 j information or propose a standard form that they could l NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDi ISLAND AVINU[ NW j (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202i 232 6600
| |
| | |
| 46
| |
| . 1 1 have a consensus on.
| |
| f 2 COMMISSIONER CARR: And what are-you going 3 to do in the meantime?
| |
| '1 4 MR. GRIMES: Well, we expect that this' form l 5 will be developed and available when these programs i
| |
| 6 l are put into work. )'
| |
| l 7 COMMISSIONER CARR: Inside the 180 days?
| |
| 8 MR. GRIMES: Yes.
| |
| 9 COMMISSIONER CARR: And what if it's not?
| |
| 10 MR. GRIMES: Then I think we would probably 11 come back to the Commission and propose an amendment 12 to the rule.
| |
| 13 i COMMISSIONER CARR: All right.
| |
| l i
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: The data and the experiences i
| |
| 15 , that went with this rule once it's put into effect, it l 16 1, seems to me, are very important and I hope that we l >
| |
| I l
| |
| 17 '
| |
| would have some kind of a plan to track the data, keep I
| |
| 18 informed of the experiences and -- so that we can '
| |
| 19 improve the rule if it looks like we should. It's 20 still a relatively new area. There has been 21 experiences in other agencies and branch of the 22 government. On the other hand, I hope that -- the 23 data's important and experience is important. We need 24 some kind of a system to monitor it and track it so we i
| |
| 25 i can see should the rule be changed. No reason the I NEAL R. GROSS f court REPORTERS AND TRAN$CRIBfR$
| |
| 1323 RHoDI 15L AND AVINU[, N W l r202> 234 44a3 wAsNiucToN oC 2 coos (2c2> 232-esoo
| |
| | |
| 1 47 1 rule, once we've put it out, has to remain forever. j 2 And I think it is important that we get good data, f
| |
| 3 check the experiences that we've had and have some l
| |
| 4 kind of a plan to look at it in the future to see 5 how's it going. I'd suggest we do that.
| |
| 6 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I'd just like to 7 really reenforce that. It seems'to me the 8 measurability of the effectiveness of this program is 9 very important and that means comparable data. And I 10 think that it's very important at the outset we 11 collect data on a uniform basis.
| |
| 12 Now, there may be some optional things that 33 people could supply or not, but certain kinds of. data, 14 I it would seem to me, are absolutely musts and that 1
| |
| 15 there should -- that shouldn't option. I can't tell 16 you what they are, but I'm sure you people can tell.
| |
| I 17 So that if one's trying to create a database here to I i 18 look at to see exactly how effective this program is, 19 then there has to be a uniform basis for establishing 20 that database. There may be some optional elements 21 that are in there or not, but some key elements just 22 have to be there in the same basis.
| |
| 23 COMMISSIONER CARR: I would agree to that.
| |
| I 24 Sone of those things you could find out when you go 25 look at their program. _You could find out whether
| |
| ! NEAL R. GROSS f COURT REPORTER 5 AND TR ANSCRIBER5 l 1323 RHoDI ISL AND AVINUE. N W t (202) 234 4433 WA5HINGToN. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 48 1 they used dogs or not by when you go out and visit the 2 site. You wouldn't necessarily have to have that on
| |
| {
| |
| 3 the form. But --
| |
| l 4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right, let's proceed.
| |
| 5 MR. GRIMES: Thank you.
| |
| 6 l (Slide) 7 MR. GRIMES: Number 20. With respect to 8 scope expansions of the rule, in the proposed rule we 9 did -- the Commission did ask for a comment whether it 10 should be applied to nonpower reactors, '
| |
| fuel 11 facilities and other licensees. All comments were 12 against applying the rule to these facilities. I i
| |
| 13 guess the staf f has not, in the time scale of this
| |
| )
| |
| 14 rule, focused on those --
| |
| the need or what should be '
| |
| i 15 done at those facilities, but proposes not to act on l
| |
| 1 16 I those matters at this time. We think the thing that i
| |
| i' 17 needs to be addressed at this point immediately is the l
| |
| 18 power reactor situation.
| |
| l 19 ! COMMISSIONER CARR: Well, that doesn't mean
| |
| .' 20 you're not coming back to fuel facilities?
| |
| 21 MR. GRIMES: That's right.
| |
| 22 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I'd hope you'd keep fuel 23 facilities on your list. At least if we don't put it 24 in this rule, then we have something you can continue
| |
| .25 to look at. I don't know why we don't include it NEAL R. GROSS j COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBIRS I
| |
| 1323 RHoDE 15 LAND AVINUE. N W j (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (2021 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 49 1 right off hand but -- can you give me any rational?
| |
| f 2 MR. GRIMES: Well, it 's- the . reason f or going 3 for requirements on power reactors first l
| |
| 4 is--
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We don't want these drugs in 6 l the fuel facilities either.
| |
| 7 MR. GRIMES: Right. Right.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Go ahead.
| |
| 9 MR. GRIMES: Is the more direct impact on 10 the health and safety of the public of failures which, 11 in the fitness programs which might cause actual 12 effects on the public.
| |
| 13 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I understand.
| |
| 14 MR. GRIMES: Those are more remote in a fuel l
| |
| l 15 ! facility.
| |
| i l
| |
| 16 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We don't want any radiation 17 i released to the atmosphere. I understand that.
| |
| i 18 l
| |
| MR. GRIMES: Right.
| |
| I 19 CHAIRMAN ZECH: But also in the fuel 20 facilities we want to make sure that they're 21 performing their duties properly and that they don't 22 put together some kind of a fuel element or whatever 23 that really is not the quality that we expect.
| |
| 24 < So, I hope you'll look at this one and the 25 other areas, too, perhaps, especially fuel facilities.
| |
| I NEAL R. GROSS l 1 CoVRT RERoRTIRS AND TRAN$CRIBER$
| |
| ) l 1323 RHODE ISLAND AV(NU[ N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 50 !
| |
| 1 It seems to me that this ought to be something --
| |
| f 2 MR. STELLO: We will.
| |
| 3 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -- you'll continue to watch.
| |
| l 4 MR. GRIMES: In the area of construction 1
| |
| 5 permit expansion, we think it is appropriate to--
| |
| i 1
| |
| 6 extended to construction permits, although there is a '
| |
| 7 less direct relationship to hazard to public health !
| |
| l l
| |
| 8 and safety. In other words, during construction you l 1
| |
| l 9 want to take all the measures you can to make sure 10 that the facility is built correctly and you have a 11 lot of over checks and testing and things, which are 12 designed to show this. So that acts by individuals 13 don't have as direct a relationship to releases to the I s 1 14 public as they would in an operating nuclear power i
| |
| 15 plant. However --
| |
| l i
| |
| 16 ! CHAIRMAN ZECH: I agree with that and I l
| |
| 17 think that's a good recommendation. But, by the same l
| |
| 18 }
| |
| token, I think it's related somewhat --
| |
| 19 MR. GRIMES: Yes.
| |
| 20 CHAIRMAN ZECH: --
| |
| for example to the fuel 21 facilities. You want --
| |
| we want good construction at 22 our power plants, I agree. That's fine. It seems to 23 me we alst want good' perf ormance in our fuel 24 facilities. There is a link in my judgment, but I 25 hope you'll look at that.
| |
| l NEAL R. GROSS
| |
| ! COURT REPORT!R$ AND TRAN5CRIBERS
| |
| ! 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVINUf, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 4600
| |
| | |
| 51 1 MR. GRIMES: Okay. The staff has f 2 recommended extension to construction permit sites for 3 the general program elements. We haven't gone into l
| |
| 4 the detail.
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: For the licensee 6 only?
| |
| 7 MR. GRIMES: No. It would be for the 8 licensee and his contractors.
| |
| 9 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: And subcontractors?
| |
| l 10 MR. GRIMES: Yes. Anyone with -- again, on-11 site access. Same rules for unescorted access on a 12 site.
| |
| 13 (Slide) 14 l MR. GRIMES: Number 22. The date for I
| |
| 15 l implementation got a lot of comments. The proposed l
| |
| 16 I rule had proposed 90 days for many of the program I
| |
| 17 i elements and 180 days for chemical testing. There l
| |
| 18 were a lot of comments that there was administrative--
| |
| {
| |
| 19 administrative difficulties in readjusting contracts, 20 both with testing labs and unions and other parties 21 involved, contractors and so that a longer time period 22 would be appropriate. So we have --
| |
| we are 23 recommending that all of the requirements be at the 24 180 day tin.e mark. This does not extend the time when 25 chemical testing must be implemented from what was NEAL R. GROSS i court REPORTER 5 AND TRAN5CRIBERS
| |
| , 1323 RHoDI ISL AND AVfNUE. N W
| |
| { (202) 234 4433 WA5HINGToN. D C 20005 (202; 232-6600 e
| |
| _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______w
| |
| | |
| 1 52 1 proposed, but does extend the 90 days for putting the j f 2 program elements in place to the 180 day mark and give 3 I a little more time to get the paperwork in place to i
| |
| 4 support the program. And we believe this is a 5 reasonable accommodation of the practical 6 considerations that were brought up in the comments.
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Have you looked at the 8 capability of the laboratories to handle the samples?
| |
| E 9 MR. GRIMES: Yes. We've talked to NIDA 10 about that. They have not -- have said there should 11 be no program. This month in January, HHS published l 12 its first set of certified laboratories, ten 13 laboratories, which are now certified and they will be 14 I on a monthly basis updating that certification list.
| |
| I.
| |
| 15 l And they expect that to grow substantially. So we i
| |
| 16 i don't believe that there is a problem in that regard. l l
| |
| l i
| |
| 17 '
| |
| CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right.
| |
| 18 l (Slide) 19 l MR. GRIMES: Number 23. To assure that the 20 written policies and procedures meet our expectations,.
| |
| 21 l we're asking licensees to certify implementation of I
| |
| 22 the rule and to report the cut-off levels.
| |
| 23 (Slide) 24 MR. GRIMES: And number 24. We intend to l
| |
| i 25 l have a temporary instruction to our regional i
| |
| l NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTER 5 AND TR AN$CRIBIR$
| |
| 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVfNUf, N W.
| |
| (202) 234-4433 WASHINGioN. D C 20005 (202) 232 6600
| |
| | |
| 9 53 1 inspectors so that they will look at each licensee
| |
| ( 2 program to make sure that it is complete and being 3 implemented adequately.
| |
| 4 COMMISSIONER CARR: Why did you want them to l t
| |
| 5 report lower cut-off levels, just for curiosity?
| |
| 6 l MR. GRIMES: Well, partly to determine 7 whether there was a large number of utilities, for 8 example, using lower cut-off levels in a particular 9 area then we might want to focus in as we go out on 10 their experience with those lower cut-off levels. If 11 only one utility is using a cut-off level on a 12 particular drug, it's probably not worth our while to i
| |
| 13 -- to go out and collect information on it. If we can 14 learn something from lower cut-off levels, I think we 15 i should. It's kind of a trigger there and will give us l
| |
| 16 j a baseline as to what is going -- what is being used l l
| |
| 17 1 in the industry.
| |
| l 18 '
| |
| MR. STELLO: I think it would be very, very l
| |
| 19 useful information for NIDA when they're considering l
| |
| 20 ; this as well.
| |
| I 21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I think also 22 that in this data collection if somebody's using a 23 lower cut-off level, they ought to collect the data 24 ,
| |
| that's divided into those -- what is above the l
| |
| 25 standard cut-off level that everybody else is using NEAL R. GROSS l
| |
| COURT REPORTER 5 AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDI !$ LAND AV[NU!, N W i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| I 54 1
| |
| i 1 and what they're picking up below that so that they're f 2 not mixed in and they can't say, "Well, we didn't 3 separate them and we can't.tell you the difference." I 4 That's very important that there'be a common --
| |
| that 5 you emphasize that commonality --
| |
| 6 l MR. GRIMES: Yes.
| |
| 7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: -- of data collection. )1 1
| |
| 8 And if they want to set a lower cut-off level, then !
| |
| i 9 they have the data that shows what in addition they i 10 picked up in that lower level.
| |
| 11 MR. GRIMES': Yes. That is specified by the 12 rule that they will report at the levels we set as 13 well as their own levels. They will record, rather, 14 at those levels.
| |
| 15 l (Slide) l 16 i MR. GRIMES: Number 25. Just to mention I
| |
| 17 l that we are also issuing some examples for the I
| |
| 18 ; enforcement policy on our program breakdowns or 19 failures which might cause us to take enforcement
| |
| / 20 action in this area.
| |
| 21 (Slide) 22 MR. GRIMES: Number 26.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Before you go on to that --
| |
| l l
| |
| 24 i MR. GRIMES: Yes.
| |
| I 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: As I understand your NEAL R. GROSS
| |
| ! CoVRT REPoRTIRS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDI ISLAND AVENUI, H W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 55 1 proposal, it seems to me that there should be ;
| |
| i f 2 consideration of a direct requirement imposed on the 3 license operators thems; elves. And as I understand it, I 4 that's not included so that enforcement action should 5 be taken .: r could be taken against the operator
| |
| : v. , \
| |
| 45 l 6 l himself who we license. It's against the licensee, as '
| |
| 7 I understand it, but not --
| |
| 8 MR. GRIMES: Yes.
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: -- a provision against the 10 individual reactor operator, for example, that we 11 specifically license. Is that correct?
| |
| 12 MR. STELLO: I would think we could take the 13 action against the individual licensee.
| |
| 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, that's what I'm 15 asking.
| |
| l 16 MR. PARLER: Mr. Chairman, may I comment?
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Please.
| |
| 18 MR. PARLER: All that the -- the discussion 19 at this point relates in context to the discussion a 20 few minutes ago about the need and the recommendation 21 to consider whether the PFR 56, the proposed final 22 rule if it becomes effective should be extended to 23 other areas, that is a detail of the program, the
| |
| ~
| |
| 24 ,
| |
| testing, etcetera, etcetera. Aside from that, if any 25 l fitness-for-duty problem, even now, is detected in any NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS l
| |
| 1323 RHoDI ISLAND AVINU[ NW (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 56 1 area, a fitness-for-duty problem or question which
| |
| { 2 possibly could effect the public health and safety, we 3 do have the authority to proceed with enforcement {
| |
| 4 action.
| |
| 1 5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: On an individual -- !
| |
| 6 MR. PARLER: Usually it is against ' the 7 licensees for the material or for the facilities. But 8 in the case of an operator, those people happen to be 9 licensed, so we, indeed, could proceed against those 10 individuals and, in fact, there is a proceeding, at 11 least one going on now, where we are doing this--
| |
| 12 doing just that. )
| |
| 13 I have recommended -- I will recommend that I
| |
| 14 some language be put not in the rule, but in the 15 introductory statement which would make what I've just i
| |
| 16 l talked about as clear as we can.
| |
| 17 CHAIRMAN ZECH: I think it should be I
| |
| 18 l clarified.
| |
| I 19 MR. STELLO: Mr. Chairman, I would indicate, 20 if my recollection serves me right, we've already 21 ,
| |
| issued and there is pending now an enforcement 22 proceeding on a licensed operator --
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes.
| |
| 24 hE. PARLER: I just said that.
| |
| I 25 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes. That's right. And we
| |
| ! NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRAN5CRIBER5 1323 RHODI 15L AND AV[NU[, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 6600
| |
| | |
| 57 1 know we can do that for public health 'and safety,
| |
| ( 2 broad considerations. And that's broad authority we 3 I have. But in this specific area we're talking about i
| |
| 4 drugs and alcohol, it seems to me it might clarify the i
| |
| 5 situation and emphasize it that we would --
| |
| 6 l MR. STELLO: General Counsel had an 7 excellent idea. We'll put --
| |
| make -- clarify it in 8 the statement of consideration.
| |
| 9 MR. PARLER: We don't want to discuss it in 10 too much detail right at this point because we do have 11 an ongoing --
| |
| 12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes, I understand that.
| |
| 13 MR. PARLER: -- case. And we have our legal 14 theories.
| |
| 15 ! CHAIRMAN ZECH: Right. Well, let's just i
| |
| 16 proceed then, if we've made our point.
| |
| l 17 MR. STELLO: Yes, sir.
| |
| 18 l
| |
| MR. GRIMES: All right, number 26. Just to l 19 go over other changes to the proposed rule that are 20 before the Commission for consideration.
| |
| l 21 We have specified in the final rule that a l
| |
| 22 test is not confirmed positive until the medical 23 review officer reviews the test results. And this 24 would speak to the cases where there may be a cross l
| |
| 25 reaction from foods or other drugs. These -- we've NEAL R. GROSS
| |
| ~
| |
| f COURT RIPoRTERS AND TRAN$CRIBER$
| |
| ! 1323 RHoDE t$L AND AVENUE, N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGioN. D C 2000$ (2026 232-6600
| |
| ___ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ l
| |
| | |
| 58 l prohibited licensees from taking action on those l 2 initial screening results and required that the
| |
| (
| |
| 3 medical review officer complete his evaluation before i 4 it's actually a positive.
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Who is that. medical 6 l review officer?
| |
| 7 MR. GRIMES: Beg your pardon, who is?
| |
| 8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Yes.
| |
| 9 MR. GRIMES: A licensed physician who is 10 hired by the licensee.
| |
| 11 MR. BUSH: Who has a background --
| |
| 12 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Each -- each licensee 13 would have a designated --
| |
| J 14 , MR. GRIMES: Medical review officer, yes.
| |
| 15 ! MR. BUSH: Yes. The guidelines specifies 16 qualifications.
| |
| i 17 i COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Not an employee of i
| |
| l 18 j the testing lab?
| |
| 19 MR. BUSH: No.
| |
| 20 MR. GRIMES: No. We're also specifying that 21 this process must be completed within ten days of the 22 initial test so that there's not a long delay in lab 23 work or something doesn't get addressed promptly.
| |
| 24 '
| |
| Going along, as 1 said, we're limiting the 25 access to the results of those preliminary tests until
| |
| ; NEAL R. GROSS j CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE 15 LAND AVINUf. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 59 4
| |
| 1 they're confirmed.
| |
| ( 2 And another change, the third bullet on the ;
| |
| 3 page, relates to the verification of employment 4 history. We're trying to make that pretty exactly 5 consistent with the access authorization policy 6 statement and industry guidelines there. 1 %' 's 7 (Slide) 1 8 MR. GRIMES: Number 27. We are making more 9 explicit in the general performance objectives are 10 concerned about reliability and trustworthiness in 11 addition to impairment, potential for impairment. We 12 got a number of comments, the .second bullet.--
| |
| 13 relating to the second bullet, which said. that I l 14 I specifying a screening test immediately prior to j 1
| |
| 15 access was too vague and asked for a quantification.
| |
| l \
| |
| 16 l We have specified that the screening test must be done 17 within 60 days prior to the initial granting of t
| |
| i 18 unescorted access.
| |
| l I
| |
| 19 We've also specified specifically that the l
| |
| 20 testing laboratories must be HHS certified, even 21 though they will be testing for other than the--
| |
| 22 maybe testing for other than the HHS panel of drugs.
| |
| 23 For other cut-off levels they must be at least 24 certified by HHS to provide a very high standard of 25 reliability for the testing.
| |
| i NEAL R. GROSS l CoVRT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBIRS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. H W i (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202> 232 6600
| |
| | |
| 60 1 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Did you say earlier f 2 how many laboratories currently have the HHS 3 certification?
| |
| 4 MR. GRIMES: Yes. Ten.
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Ten?
| |
| 6 l MR. GRIMES: Ten -- the initial publication 7 listed ten and that included the --
| |
| l 8 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: Throughout the whole 9 country?
| |
| 10 MR. GRIMES: Yes. They're distributed 11 throughout the whole country and HHS is in the process 12 of evaluating others.
| |
| 13 (Slide) 14 MR. GRIMES: Number 28. We also specified l
| |
| 15 ;
| |
| that --
| |
| I 16 j CHAIRMAN ZECH: But you have checked to see l
| |
| 17 that those 10 laboratories do, indeed, have the 18 j capacity for handling our drug program? l 19 MR. GRIMES: Yes, particularly when on-site 20 ;
| |
| screening programs are taken into account.
| |
| I 21 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes.
| |
| 22 l MR. GRIMES: The volume that goes off for ;
| |
| , 1 23 confirmation of these laboratories will vary from ,
| |
| 24 site-to-site, but they- should not overwhelm the 25 laboratories compared te the other federal government NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER 5 AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVINUI N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (20?l 232-f 600 I
| |
| | |
| 61 o
| |
| i requirements.
| |
| ( 2 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you.
| |
| 3 Let's proceed. ,,,
| |
| 4 MR. GRIMES: Number 28 required that during.
| |
| 5 the access authorization checking that there be a 6 l signed release to support the inquiry of other 7 facilities so it's clear that those other facilities 8 are authorized to release fitness-for-duty information 9 from past employment at that licensee. If the 10 individual does not want to sign the release, of 11 course, then the hiring licensee would not grant l
| |
| 12 unescorted access.
| |
| 13 We've increased the frequency of testing in 14 certain cases during the first four months following a l 15 j reinstatement after a three year or five year 1 \
| |
| 16 prohibition from access.
| |
| I' 17 (Slide) 3 l I 18 MR. GRIMES: Number 29. The -- we've tried 19 to clarify the appeals process. We now make it 20 explicit that all persons tested, whether they're 21 contract or employees, have a right to some kind of 22 appeal on the test results. It can be an independent 23 licensee manager or it could be an existing grievance 24 I procedure.
| |
| l 25 In those cases where a licensee relies on a a 1
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS COURT RIPoRTIR5 AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVINUf, N W.
| |
| (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D C 20005 (202) 232 6600
| |
| | |
| 1 l
| |
| l 62 1 1 contractor program, than the contractor appeals
| |
| { 2 process would have to include this. The licensee
| |
| , 3 would not include this. But where the licensee tests l
| |
| 4 a contractor under its program, then it would have to l .
| |
| 5 have an. appeal on that test result.
| |
| 6 l (Slide) l 7 MR. GRIMES: Number 30, which is the last--
| |
| 8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Excuse me. Just you 9 say that the appeals process applies to the test 10 results only. What do you have in mind in emphasizing 11 that?
| |
| I 12 MR. GRIMES: I think the intent there was to 13 say that if the utility feels he's been -- j i
| |
| 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Not the penalty?. j 15 MR. GRIMES: I mean if the individual feels 16 ! that he has had some other injury f rom - the hiring l l
| |
| 17 contracter, some other reason why he's not hired, that I
| |
| ! 4
| |
| ! 18 that doesn't apply. We're focusing on test results.
| |
| 19 Number 30. We added some categories of 20 pcrsons authorized access. For example, to personal 21 information. For example, those responsible for .
| |
| 22 deciding matters on review and appeal and auditors and 23 we've restricted the law enforcement access that we 24 had in the proposed rule to conditions under a court 25 order.
| |
| NEAL R. GROSS CC'URT REPoRTIRS AND TRANSCRIBER $
| |
| 1323 RHODE 15 LAND AVINU[, N W j (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGTON, D C 2000$ (2021 232-6600 l
| |
| | |
| 63 a
| |
| 1 That completes the presentation on the f 2 principal issues and the principal changes that were 3 made to this point. And the staff's recommendation is 1
| |
| 4 that the Commission approve the rule as recommended in 5 -- with the conditions recommended in the staff paper 6 and that we proceed from this point to implement a 7 fitness-for-duty program for power reactors.
| |
| 8 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Thank you very much.
| |
| 9 MR. STELLO: We're through, Mr. Chairman.
| |
| 10 CHAIRMAN ZECH: All right. Thank you.
| |
| 11 Questions from my f ellow Commissioners. l 12 Commissioner Roberts?
| |
| 13 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS: No.
| |
| s 14 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Commissioner Carr?
| |
| 15 COMMISSIONER CARR: Yes, I've got one -- one 16 l area I think that's left open and it's caused me a lot l
| |
| 17 of problems in the past. And that's what happens if i
| |
| 18 the civilian authorities bust a guy for drugs and it's 19 totally off-site, hasn't anything to do with the 20 utility. He's in Fort Lauderdale for Easter vacation.
| |
| 21 He's tried there, found guilty and comes back. He's 22 clean when he gets back. What do we do? How do we 23 handle those guys who do what we don't want them to do l 24 off-site? I can't find it anywhere in here. I can I 25 find where it says "any acts by any person licensed to l
| |
| ' NEAL R. GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRAN$CRI5(R$
| |
| 1323 RHoDE 15L AND AYlNU[, N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 i
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 64 4
| |
| 1 operate a power reactor by any supervisory personnel I
| |
| f assigned involving the sale, use or possession 2
| |
| 3 resulting in confirmed positive tests involving use of 4 alcohol." Those have to be reported to us, but that's 5 the only paragraph I could find that looks like it 6 will have anything to do with so-called off-site, non 7 duty type use or abuse.
| |
| 8 MR. BUSH: Well, there's two problems there.
| |
| 9 Number one, is licensee acquiring the information and, 10 obviously, requiring -- they could require the 1
| |
| 11 employee to report it. That doesn't necessarily mean 12 that he will report it, as you can well understand.
| |
| I 13 Typically the licensees, that would probably I
| |
| h 14 !
| |
| fall under the aspect of criminal conduct since he was i
| |
| ! l 15 apprehended and there was probably a conviction 16 l involved. And typically their personnel policies 1
| |
| 17 indicate that some sort of personnel or disciplinary i
| |
| \
| |
| 18 action will be taken if criminal conduct is --
| |
| 19 COMMISSIONER CARR: A lot of places it's a 20 misdemeanor to even have possession, you know.
| |
| 21 MR. BUSH: That's unfortunately true, 22 because the courts are so overloaded that unless you 23 have a bale of marijuana, they drop the charge.
| |
| 24 COMMISSIONER CARR: I don't --
| |
| I don't know l
| |
| 25 how to plug that hole, but I'm concerned about it NEAL R. GROSS li COURT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 l
| |
| | |
| 65 1 especially in some st'ates.
| |
| ( 2 MR. GRTMES: Yes, we expect licensees to 3 continue as they do now to consider known off-site 4 behavior in their -- 1 5 COMMISSIONER CARR: Well, if you know about 6 l it, you can always use that as a for-cause test.
| |
| 7 MR. GRIMES: Or a reason to test frequently 8 or something.
| |
| 9 MR. STELLO: It seems to me that that would 10 be the same thing as though he were caught by a random 11 test.
| |
| 12 COMMISSIONER CARR: Well, it's --
| |
| 13 MR. STELLO: It ought' to have the. same t
| |
| 14 effect as being --
| |
| 15 COMMISSIONER CARR: Yes, if you can find 16 l out.
| |
| i l
| |
| 17 MR. STELLO: I see. If you found out --
| |
| l 18 COMMISSIONER CARR: My question is, how are 19 we going to find those out, I guess.
| |
| 20 MR. GRIMES: We do not have a way of 21 tracking that.
| |
| 22 MR. BUSH: Theoretically, when a person is 23 initially applying for employment, he submits a I l
| |
| l 24 l fingerprint card to the FBI. And the Fort Lauderdale 25 police depa'rtment should forward that information to NEAL R. GROSS l CoVRT REPORTERS AND TR ANSCRIBER5 i
| |
| 1323 RHoDE ISL AND AVENUE. N.W.
| |
| (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| * 1 66 l 1 the FBI to their repository. But then -- ]
| |
| f 2 MR. GRIMES: That applies to this screening, 3 '
| |
| but again this applies to not only drug testing but l
| |
| 4 f any kind of fingerprinting --
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER CARR: You can take the case of 6 the seller who_is not a user in the local community 7 and you'll never catch him in a screening test.
| |
| 8 MR. BUSH: That's true. That's true.
| |
| 9 MR. GRIMES: This applies to armed robbery 10 as well. Our access authorization goes through it 11 once, but subsequent acts are not tracked.
| |
| 12 COMMISSIONER CARR: Okay. I don't have 'a 13 solution.for it, but I do worry about it.
| |
| 14 ! MR. BUSH: Okay.
| |
| 15 l CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Rogers?
| |
| i 16 i COMMISSIONER ROGERS: A couple of thoughts.
| |
| l 17 ! One on the uses of the samples for other purposes.
| |
| I 18 l You addressed that in section 11.2.2 but I'm still a i
| |
| 19 little concerned. I'm not sure what we can do, if I
| |
| 20 anything, of -- in the case of a use of these tests by 1 21 a licensee for a totally different purpose from the 22 drug abuse screening.
| |
| i 23 k'e ' r e requiring them to conduct these tests 24 i and set ther up, but they could be used for other 25 purposes, other personnel- actions and so on and so NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPoRTIR$ AND TRANSCRIBERS f 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AYlNUE. N W I (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C 20005 (202) 232 6600
| |
| | |
| I k
| |
| ! 67 1 forth. i Well, we tried to specify in
| |
| ( 2 MR. GRIMES:
| |
| 3 the guidelines 2.1.d of the appendix -- here, I'll 'I 4 read that, which says " specimens collected under NRC 5 regulations requiring compliance with this part may 1 i
| |
| 6 l only be designated or approved for testing as l
| |
| 7 described in this part and shall not be used to 8 conduct any other analysis or test without the 9 permission of the tested individual." ,
| |
| l 10 MR. STELLO: I don't think that's the l
| |
| 11 Commissioner's question. I think he's wondering -- '
| |
| 12 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: No. I don't think that 13 quite covers it. It might, but --
| |
| 34 MR. GRIMES: It might -- yes.
| |
| 15 ; COMMISSIONER ROGERS: It doesn't really i i
| |
| 16 i address the use of it, it addressed the kinds of 17 i further tests that would be done.
| |
| 18 MR. GRIMES: Tests performed.
| |
| 19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And it might ~ cover it, J 20 but I know that there have been some situations that 21 have come up when -- where random drug tests were 22 extended, that the samples were used for --to look for 23 other things, pregnancy for example, and then action 24 was taken, personnel action was taken on the basis of 25 f that data. Now, the data was collected only for drug l
| |
| l NEAL R. GROSS j CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 i 1323 RHoDE 15 LAND AVENUE. N W (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D C. 20005 (202) 232-6600 l . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ - _ _ -
| |
| | |
| 68 1 test, it was not collected for another purpose, and l ( 2 yet the organization, not one of our licensees, then I 3 used it for a different kind of personnel action. And l
| |
| 4 it just occurs to me that we're opening through this 5 the door through this process which we're insisting on l-6 for other uses. I'm not sure what authority we have 1
| |
| 7 to prevent that, if any. But it's something that one 8 thinks about a little bit.
| |
| 9 MR. BUSH: This language is borrowed from--
| |
| 10 COMMISSIONER CARR: It sounds like your 11 paragraph fixed that.
| |
| I 12 MR. GRIMES: Yes. -
| |
| 13 MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| k 14 MR. GRIMES: Well, it says it shall not be 15 used to conduct any other analysis or test. But if i
| |
| 16 i there is something in the existing test result, for I
| |
| J i
| |
| , 17 i example, the medical review officer sees a gas !
| |
| l 1 i i
| |
| 18 chromatograph readout, which is a complete readout of 19 l all the blips on the curve, and if he can interpret i
| |
| 20 that in some way even though the test was only done 21 for the purpose of the test --
| |
| 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Precisely. Yes.
| |
| 23 MR. GRIMES: I see your point.
| |
| 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Then it's used for 25 l another purpose. Now, I'm not sure. .I don't know NEAL R. GROSS court RIPoRTERS AND TRANSCRIB[R5 1323 RHoDI ISL AND AV[NUE, N W ,
| |
| 1, (202) 234-4433 WA5HINGToN. D C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
| |
| | |
| 69 1 whether General Counsel could throw any light on this
| |
| ( 2 as to what we can have to say about that, if anything.
| |
| 3- MR. PARLER: Well, maybe I should think 4 about it further and I will after the meeting. But 5 for just right now, we're talking about an area where 6 1 the utilities are free and the licensees are' free, at 7 least initially, to come up with programs such as this 8 to serve their own needs. They have a program which 9 produces certain information. It would seem to me 10 that unless it has to do -- the improper use of it has 11 to do with our public health and safety 12 responsibilities, certainly is, there are questions as 13 to the scope of our authority. That doesn't mean that 14 the utilities would be free to do whatever they want.
| |
| 15 There might be state laws, there m a'y be union 16 l agreements. And, indeed, if the information were used i
| |
| i 17 -
| |
| allegedly in the eyes of an employee to take 18 disciplinary action against the employee, presumably 19 for the space on the information that you're talking 20 about but in the eyes of the employee is really based 21 some other information, such as raising safety 22 questions, we do in our regulations and there is a 23 federal law section 210 that gives the employee 24 certain protection there if the employee proves his or 25 her case and also the right to be rade whole for any NEAL R. GROSS
| |
| , CoVRT REPORTERS AND TR AN$CRIS[R5 1323 RHoDI ISL AND AVINUE. N W t (202) 234 4433 WA5HINGioN. D C 20005 (2024 232-66r4
| |
| | |
| 70 1 injuries that are suffered. But beyond that, I would
| |
| ( 2 have to think further.
| |
| 3 MR. BUSH: I might point out that this 4 language was borrowed from the HHS Guidelines and I 5 guess there's an assumption on our part that there was 6 some kind of legal review. And the language --
| |
| 7 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: It sounds pretty good.
| |
| 8 MR. BUSH: --
| |
| as I understand it, was 9 intended to accomplish just exactly what you've 10 pointed out, Commissioner Rogers.
| |
| 11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, but I never 12 assumed that that necessarily --
| |
| 13 i MR. BUSH: Yes.
| |
| 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: -- is the case.
| |
| l 15 MR. BUSH: Correct. .,
| |
| l 16 I COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Assumptions are always 17 I bad.
| |
| 18 MR. GRIMES: I'll agree with that.
| |
| 19 CO!!MISSIONER ROGERS : One should always look 20 because everybody assumes that somebody looked and 21 nobody looked.
| |
| 22 But I don't know if there's any more to say 23 on that, but I would like to hear from General Counsel 24 on it.
| |
| 25 There is a comment in the SECY that I'd just I
| |
| I NEAL R. GROSS j CoVRT RipoRTER$ AND TR AN$CRIBER$
| |
| j 1323 RHoDE 15 LAND AVINUE. N W t (202) 234 d433 WASHINGTON. D C. 20005 (202n 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 71 i
| |
| -1 like to comment on 'on page 7. There's a statement j 2 that the staff believes that any blood alcohol content 3 while an employee is on duty is cause for concern.
| |
| i mean by "any? " I have a lot of l 4 Now what do you 5 trouble with such a word which is non-quantitative and 6 l its meaning, in a sense, depends on time because any 7 means detectable, and detectable is someth'ing which is 8 changing all the time. As instrumentation improves, I l
| |
| 9 we can begin to detect things that we never could see 10 before.
| |
| 11 And so, I-don't know that your -- that that I i
| |
| 1 l 12 point of view that you express there is reflected l
| |
| l 13 I again in any way in your document, but if it is, I'd 1
| |
| 14 like to know about it. l I
| |
| 15 MR. GRIMES: I think it was a poor choice of l 16 I words and a better choice would have been we believe I
| |
| i 17 that any amount should be evaluated. I think the I
| |
| I 18 concern was too strongly -- too strong of words.
| |
| 19 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, it's the
| |
| ~
| |
| 20 question of any because we don't know what any means.
| |
| 21 MR. GRIMES: That's right.
| |
| 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And does the amount of 23 alcohol that appears in a person's blood after having 24 had a dinner with a dessert that had some sherry in 25 it, does that give you cause for concern? It.might,
| |
| ! NEAL R. GROSS l CoVRT RIPoRTERS AND TRAN$CRIBERS
| |
| ! 1323 RHoDE ISL AND AYlNU[, N W l (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON D C 20005 (202) 232-6600 t
| |
| | |
| 72 1 it might not. But I'd like to know what "any" means.
| |
| 2 It's a very broad gauged statement.
| |
| {
| |
| 3 MR. GRIMES: I think --
| |
| 4 MR. STELLO: We talked about this very 5 extensively. I think the simple' problem is we don't 6 want to conclude that someone with 0.039 percent 7 alcohol is okay.
| |
| 8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Okay.
| |
| 9 MR. STELLO: It varies from individual to 10 individual. The concept, the idea is simple. Even 11 though you didn't exceed the number, someone ought to 12 be asking a question, well if there's a belief that I
| |
| 13 i someone has, in. fact, consumed some alcohol --
| |
| l 14 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes.
| |
| I 15 j MR. STELLO: -- are they okay? I think i
| |
| 16 i that's the thrust of what we're looking for rather i
| |
| i 17 1 than trying to hang our head on -- where I think there 1
| |
| 18 ; is general belief that even, you know, numbers less 19 than 0.04, there might be any problem. That's--
| |
| .' 20 that's the idea.
| |
| 21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I accept that, I
| |
| 22 but any means any.
| |
| 23 MR. GRIMES: Yes.
| |
| 24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And that means any 25 that could be detected by-any means. And that's -- I t
| |
| j NEAL R. GROSS court REPoRTIRS AND TRANSCRIBERS f 1323 RHODE ISL AND AY[HU(, N W I (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (20?i 732 4 600
| |
| | |
| 73 4
| |
| 1 have a little trouble with going quite that far with f 2 it.
| |
| 3 MR. GRIMES: I think the words were --
| |
| 4 l COMMISSIONER ROGERS: I think it needs just 5 maybe a little bit of clarification.
| |
| 6 j MR. STELLO: I think, for example, as I 7 recall, a diabetic consistently would show an alcohol 8 level that's measurable in their blood all the time.
| |
| 9 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Yes.
| |
| 10 MR. BUSH: Sugars and fruit will turn into 11 alcohol --
| |
| 12 MR. GRIMES: So there is some level that is 13 on evaluation dismissed. .
| |
| 14 MR. STELLO: But I think -- what we were l
| |
| 15 j trying to get at, what I said, is not trying to be i
| |
| 16 ! precise that --
| |
| i l
| |
| 17 ; COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Likely to cause 1
| |
| 18 impairment -- any level likely to cause impairment.
| |
| 19 MR. STELLO: Yes. What you're concerned 20 about is if there's impairment, the individual ought 21 not to be on shift.
| |
| 22 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: And the other thing 23 relates to this question of prescription and over-the-24 .
| |
| counter drugs. We're' talking about fitness-for-duty l
| |
| 25 here. Some of the subsidiary reports that we received l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TR AN$CRIBER$
| |
| l 1323 RHoDI t$L AND AVINUf, N W-
| |
| { (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C. 2000$ (202) 232-6600 l
| |
| | |
| 74 1 on these are very interesting, but it's not clear to f 2 me what the conclusions of those are insofar as this 3 rule reflects that concern. Where do we stand in the 4 rule with respect to impairment by prescription or 5 over-the-counter drugs?
| |
| 6 l MR. GRIMES: Those are included in our 7 general concern and any impairment that is detected 8 the rule says no matter from what cause, you should 9 take action to take the person off shift. We've left 10 -- and some of the drugs tested for, for example, 11 amphetamines may be included in prescription drugs 12 also. So in a way, there's an overlap there.
| |
| 13 Benzodiazepines and barbiturates are two 14 specific things that are in that class. Whether or 15 ! not we included them here, some licensees do test for i
| |
| 16 ! them, i
| |
| 17 The way we've spoken to that in the rule is i
| |
| l 18 mainly in the sanctions we've said for those l
| |
| 19 substances the sanctions that we specified for the
| |
| .' 20 legal drugs and the panel of drugs are not to be 21 automatically implied, but as in the case of alcohol ,
| |
| 22 each licensee must have a system to consider those.
| |
| 23 And we would hope that guidance would be provided to 24 licensees on the nature of substances that might cause 25 impairment and that the licensees would appropriately NEAL R. GROSS f CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 1323 RHoDi 15 LAND AVINUE, N W f (202) 234 4433 W ASHINGToN. O C. 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 75 1 test as the technology changes for other drugs that f 2 might cause that impairment.
| |
| 3 We've left the sanctions to be determined on 4 a case-by-case basis there.
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Well, I know we're 6 probably not finished with this. It's the first 7 start, and it seems to me a very good one, on the 8 whole problem.
| |
| I 9 What do you envision as a review process and 10 some kind of a time in which we might revisit this 11 whole program to see how well it's worked, where it i
| |
| 12 might be improved, changed?
| |
| I 13 MR. STELLO:
| |
| About a year or 18 months after 14 ! its inception.
| |
| i i
| |
| 15 j COMMISSIONER CARR: After the 360 -- I mean i
| |
| 16 ! after the 180 days?
| |
| 17 i MR. STELLO: Yes. After we start actually l
| |
| l 18 collecting information and data. After about a year 19 to 18 months I think it's time to go back and start
| |
| .' 20 seeing what we learned from that information.
| |
| 21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS: Good. Good. Thank 22 you.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Mr. Curtiss?
| |
| l 24 i COMMISSIONER CURTISS: Just a quick comment.
| |
| L 25 I thought the SECY paper and the manner in which the NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBER 5 1323 RHoDE 15 LAND AVENUE, N W.
| |
| (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. O C. 20005 (202) 232 6600 1 !
| |
| I L____--_-_________________-_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._
| |
| | |
| 76 1 issues were laid out, the presentation, the options
| |
| ( 2 was very well done. I'd like to commend everybody who 3 contributed to this briefing. Thank you.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Let me just ask a question--
| |
| 5 really make a comment on the cut-off. It seems to me 6 i that what the staff has said is that they're 7 suggesting that we go with the cut-offs that are 8 fairly well established by the federal government, and 9 I understand that that -- that would have, certainly, 10 the strength of the federal government decisions that 11 have already been made. There was a discussion of s 12 whether or not we should lower those cut-offs levels, 13 and we understand that's within our authority to do 14 so.
| |
| 15 I would suggest that my -- that we might 16 l want to consider if we do go along with what the staff i
| |
| li l '7 has recommended as regards cut-offs, that we might l'
| |
| 18 want to --
| |
| and if we don't want to accept a lower 19 level, which we could, of course, as we've been told.
| |
| 20 But if we don't want to do that, perhaps we could 21 accept the cut-offs as presented by the staff and then 22 go forward with the notice of proposed rulemaking to 23 change the cut-off levels and during that time ask the 24 National Institute for Drug Abuse as well as HHS to 25 comment on it. In other words, to see if we couldn't NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TR ANSCRIBERS I
| |
| 132 3 RHODE ISL AND AVf NUE. N W (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C- 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| 77 1 get a rather authoritative review as to whether it 2 would be appropriate or not for us to lower these f
| |
| 3 levels. That's something I think we might want to 4 consider if we don't want to lower the cut-off levels 5 ourselves. And as the staff has pointed out, it may 6 l not be -- the staff doesn't seem to have the 7 confidence that we could do that now.
| |
| 8 MR. BUSH: Mr. Chairman?
| |
| 9 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes.
| |
| {
| |
| I l 10 MR. BUSH: NUMARC and the licensees, a 1
| |
| l 11 couple of the testing laboratories and some other 12 people, consultants who have some knowledge in this I 13 l area, all recommended lower cut-off levels.
| |
| ( l 14 ! MR. GRIMES: Well, I think what Mr. Bush is l
| |
| l 15 saying is from a technical standpoint that there isn't 16 , a problem. But the problems relate to the policy.
| |
| I 17 ; CHAIRMAN ZECH: I understand that. I I
| |
| 18 i understand that. And you have told us to --
| |
| l 19 l MR. BUSH: We've already gotten public
| |
| / 20 comments in the recommendations to lower.
| |
| 1 21 COMMISSIONER CARR: It's a policy matter, 22 Mr. Chairman.
| |
| 23 CHAIRMAN ZECH: That's right.
| |
| 24 COMMISSIONER CARR: I would think we'd want 25 to go with the lower levels and then ask them for a j 1
| |
| 1' NEAL R. GROSS ,
| |
| court REPORTER $ AND TR AN$ CRIB [R$
| |
| 1323 RHoDE 15 LAND AVENU[ N W l (202) 234-4433 WA$HINGToN. D C. 20005 (202) 232-E.600 1
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 78 i 1 review and -- 1 l
| |
| ( 2' CHAIRMAN ZECH: We can do that.
| |
| 3 COMMISSIONER CARR: -- change them up.
| |
| 4 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We can do that. We can -- .
| |
| 5 COMMISSIONER CARR: It's harder to go down 6 than it is up. ,
| |
| 7 CHAIRMAN ZECH: We can go at the lower level j 8 and say that's what we've decided based on the best 9 judgment we have. I'm just suggesting that if we l
| |
| 10 didn't want to do that, there's another alternative, l 11 and that's to go'with the notice of proposed I
| |
| 12 rulemaking.
| |
| 13 So we have options, is what I'm trying to 14 I say. We can either go with it if we have the 15 confidence and recognize that the comments have been l
| |
| i I
| |
| 16 I received, would give us the assurances to go with it, 1
| |
| 17 let it stand or if we don't want to do that, we still I
| |
| i 18 j have another alterative and that would be to go with l l 19 the notice of proposed rulemaking and force the issue 20 itself.
| |
| l l 21 I'm just suggesting that's an alterative, 22 that's all.
| |
| 23 MR. STELLO: Mr. Chairman.
| |
| 24 CHAIRMAN "2ECH: Yes.
| |
| 25 MR. STELLO: There are many options that NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTER $ AND TRAN$CRIBER$
| |
| 1323 RHoDI l$l AND AVENUE, N W j (202) 234-4433 WA$HINGToN. D C- 2000$ (2021 232-6600 i
| |
| | |
| 79 Whatever the Commission decides, I 1 concern this level.
| |
| ( 2 we'll do. I just feel very, very nervous about us 3 getting into an area we really haven't worked in yet.
| |
| 4 And maybe --
| |
| 5 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Well, I understand your 6 l position. That's why.I'm presenting this other 7 proposed rulemaking, perhaps, as an alternative to 8 what you're suggesting. In other words, if we don't 9 feel confidence enough to lower it -- 1 10 COMMISSIONER CARR: If EDL doesn't like it, 11 lead the field in this --
| |
| l 12 CHAIRMAN ZECH: Yes.
| |
| 13 COMMISSIONER CARR: But I've led the field
| |
| (
| |
| 14 in it a long time. I don't mind stepping out again.
| |
| 15 ; CHAIRMAN ZECH: So what we're saying is i
| |
| 1 16 i that, you know, if we decide to go ahead, that will be 17 our responsibility. We'll accept that. But if we 18 i feel that your strong advice is overwhelming, then 19 perhaps we can go the other way. I'm just suggesting j
| |
| /
| |
| 20 to my colleagues that we might want to think about 21 that.
| |
| 22 Well, let me also commend the staff for an 23 excellent briefing, but more than that more the way 24 you've handled this very important issue for a long I
| |
| 25 ; period of time. A lot of fine people on the staff l NEAL R. GROSS
| |
| : court REPORTER 5 AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISL AND AVENUI, N W.
| |
| (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232-6600
| |
| | |
| i 80 l 1 here have worked on it. I know you've had experts, f 2 consultants helping you, too. And we thank those of 3 you are here today for your contributions.
| |
| l 4 I I do think it's a responsible action on our 5 part. We have taken a while to come to a rule, but I 6 think again the utilities do merit recognition for 7 putting in place each one of them, their own drug 8 policy, and have had in place now for some period of 9 time. But we do feel, I think, that because of the 10 inconsistencies in the utilities that a drug is 11 appropriate. At least I feel that way. So I would 32 encourage my fellow Commissioners to act promptly on !
| |
| 13 the proposal that's before us and try to make a 14 decision on this when we can.
| |
| i 15 l I believe it's a responsible action to take l
| |
| 16 !
| |
| and I think this is the time to take it.
| |
| i 17 Any other comments? If not, we stand i
| |
| 18 adjourned. Thank you very much.
| |
| 19 (Whereupon, the briefing was adjourned at
| |
| .' 20 11:35 4.m.)
| |
| 21 22 23 1
| |
| 2*
| |
| l 25 l NEAL R. GROSS i CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRAN$ CRIB [R$ l i 1323 RHoDE ISL AND AVENUE, N.W j 1 (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D C 20005 (202) 232 4 600 l
| |
| j
| |
| | |
| l CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER l k
| |
| This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting l l
| |
| of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitled: '
| |
| TITLE OF MEETING: BRIEFING ON FINAL RULE ON FITNESS FOR DUTY
| |
| , PLACE OF MEETING: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND ,, ,
| |
| DATE OF MEETING: FEBRUARY 8, 1989 were transcribed by me. I further certify that said transcription is accurate and complete, to the best of my ability, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events. .
| |
| d(Ab hd I '
| |
| i i
| |
| \
| |
| I i I l Reporter's name:
| |
| ; )
| |
| (if other than transcriber) l I
| |
| i l
| |
| 1 i
| |
| j 9
| |
| l l NEAL R. GROSS COURT RIPoeTERS AND TRANSCRIBER $
| |
| 1323 RMOOf ISLAND AVENUI, N.W.
| |
| (202) 234 4 :33 WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20005 (202) 232 6600
| |
| | |
| O
| |
| , 1 7
| |
| a COMMISSION BRIEFING ON FINAL FITNESS-FOR-DUTY-RULE i
| |
| FEBRUARY 8, 1989 4
| |
| l 1
| |
| l l
| |
| | |
| 2 BACKGROUND PROPOSED' RULE PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 22, 1988 COMMENT PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 21, 1988 NUMEROUS PUBLIC COMMENTS ANALYZED AND -
| |
| MANY INCORPORATED .
| |
| E O
| |
| | |
| 3 M
| |
| )
| |
| ~ '
| |
| j i
| |
| PRINCIPAL ISSUES i
| |
| )
| |
| ALTERNATIVES TO RAND 0M CHEMICAL TESTS RANDOM TESTING RATES ALTERNATIVES.T0 HHS GUIDELINES
| |
| {
| |
| SPLIT SAMPLES '
| |
| ALC0HOL l
| |
| l 4
| |
| | |
| - l 4
| |
| I 1
| |
| PRINCIPAL ISSUES (CONT'D)
| |
| CUT-0FF LEVELS FOR DRUGS DRUGS TO BE TESTED RECORD KEEPING FORM '
| |
| , CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER SCOPE ~ DECISIONS DATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION ENFORCEMENT POLICY I
| |
| l 4
| |
| a
| |
| | |
| 1 5
| |
| I 9
| |
| ALTERNATIVES TO RANDOM TESTS
| |
| * NO ALTERNATIVES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
| |
| * OTHER TECHNIQUES NOT RELIABLE AND DO NOT ADDRESS IMPAIRNENT AND TRUSTWORTH'INESS 1
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| 6 a
| |
| RANDOM TESTING RATES HIGH RATE USED FOR MILITARY MAY NOT BE ESSENTIAL FOR LICENSEES NO COMMENTERS SUPPORTED 300% RATE OPTION 1: TEST RATE TO ENSURE SO% .
| |
| TESTED AND 30% RATE FOR' THOSE TESTED OPTION 2: 300% RATE e
| |
| | |
| l 7
| |
| I RANDOM TESTING RATES (CONT'D)
| |
| OPTION 3: RANDOM ASSIGNMENT OF DAY TO BE TESTED (ESTIMATED RATE 200%) '
| |
| OPTION 4:
| |
| TEST ALL WORKERS ONCE.EACH YEAR, AND 50% RATE ;
| |
| OPTION E: 100% RATE CONSIDER LOWER RATE AFTER 2 OR 3 YEARS O
| |
| 9 O
| |
| 9
| |
| | |
| e a e 8
| |
| . l 7
| |
| ALTERNATIVES TO HHS GUIDELINES HHS GUIDELINES CONTAIN TERMIN0 LOGY AND PROVISIONS INAPPROPRIATE FOR NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.
| |
| - LIMITATIONS ON DRU'GS TO BE TESTED
| |
| - NO ON-SITE TESTING PROVISIONS -
| |
| l - NO OPTION TO SPLIT SPECIMEN SAMPLES ,
| |
| HHS GUIDELINES ADAPTED AS APPENDIX A l .
| |
| O 5
| |
| e 1*
| |
| | |
| e 9
| |
| /
| |
| e SPLIT SAMPLES SPLITTING OF SAMPLES PERMITTED BUT NOT MANDATED USE WHERE ADDITIONAL CONFIDENCE IN THE PROCESS-IS SOUGHT BY'WORKFORCE l
| |
| I l
| |
| l
| |
| | |
| 4 10 e
| |
| S 8 e l .
| |
| ALC0HOL l
| |
| 1 RULE WOULD REQUIRE TESTING FOR ALC0HOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL TESTS FOR DRUGS l
| |
| l l
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| u 4 , !
| |
| 11 1
| |
| 1 l
| |
| ALC0HOL (CONT'D) j I
| |
| SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF LOW ALC0HOL LEVELS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY LICENSEES,
| |
| . AND:
| |
| -OPTIO$1: NO CUT-0FF LEVEL SPECIFIED:
| |
| SET BY EACH' LICENSEE -
| |
| - OPTION 2: 0.04% BAC SPECIFIED (USED BY DOT ADMINISTRATIONS) 1 4
| |
| 0 e
| |
| 4
| |
| | |
| e 12 ,
| |
| ~
| |
| l l
| |
| I ALCOHOL (CONT'D) 1 LICENSEE POLICY MUST ADDRESS ABSTINENCE AND CALL-INS DISCIPLINARY ACTION SET BY LICENSEES -
| |
| STRINGENT ACTIONS ENCOURAGED ,
| |
| l ALC0HOL-EVENTS INVOLVING LICENSED ,
| |
| OPERATORS AND SUPERVISORS REPORTABLE.
| |
| i e
| |
| a 4
| |
| | |
| d 13 CUT-0FF LEVELS FOR DRUGS COMMENTS BY LICENSEES SUPPORT LOWER CUT-0FF LEVELS THAN HHS FOR MARIJUANA AND AMPHETAMINES MOST LICENSEES USE LEVELS LOWER THAN THE HHS CUT-OFF LEVELS FOR MARIJUANA.
| |
| 4 S
| |
| | |
| 14 l
| |
| l '
| |
| l CUT-0FF LEVELS (CONT'D) l LOWER CUT-0FF LEVELS PROVIDE GREATER -
| |
| PROBABILITY OF DETECTION l
| |
| ' l 70.TO 80% OF ftARIJUANA POSITIVES ARE BETWEEN 20 AND 100 NG/ML i
| |
| O 4
| |
| | |
| 15 7
| |
| fuL-0FF LEVELS (CONT'D)
| |
| POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR ADOPTION OF NATIONAL STANDARD
| |
| - EXPERTISE OF HHS AND NIDA
| |
| - USE BY DOT ADMINISTRATIONS' RULE ADHERES TO HHS CUT-0FF LEVEL.S l BUT PERMITS LOWER LEVELS l
| |
| 0 L-------_--_-____________..__-_________
| |
| | |
| 16 DRUGS TO BE TESTED STAFF PROP 0' SED ALC0HOL, BENZ 0DIAZE-PINES, AND BARBITURATES BE ADDED TO l
| |
| THE HHS TESTING PROTOCOL, .
| |
| LICENSEES ENCOURAGED T0 TEST FOR OTHER DRUGS.
| |
| i O
| |
| e i
| |
| l' i
| |
| i
| |
| ( -
| |
| l l
| |
| * 17 M
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l DRUGS TO BE TESTED (CONT'D)
| |
| EDO RECOMMENDS ADDING ALC0HOL BUT REQUESTING HHS TO EVALUATE BENZ 0DIA-ZEPINES AND BARBITURATES PRIOR TO ADDITION. .
| |
| l 1
| |
| | |
| 18 ;
| |
| RECORD KEEPING FORM ,
| |
| MOST RESPONDENTS ASKED FOR DELETION OF FORM COLLECTING DATA IN STANDARD FORMAT WOULD:
| |
| -ASSURETHATkPPROPRIATEDAiAIS '
| |
| COLLECTED
| |
| - FACILITATE ANALYSIS AND AUDITS l
| |
| i l
| |
| A 4
| |
| i
| |
| _______m___.___ - _ _ _. . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
| |
| | |
| O 19 l
| |
| RECORD KEEPING (CONT'D)
| |
| NUMARC DEVELOPING STANDARD DATA COLLECTION. STAFF WILL TAKE ACTION
| |
| , IE NUMARC EFFORT NOT TIMEL.Y OR ,.
| |
| [
| |
| ADEQUATE.
| |
| 1 I
| |
| f.9 l
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| 20 l
| |
| l
| |
| . I 1
| |
| i i
| |
| CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER SCOPE EXPANSIONS
| |
| * ALL COMMENTS AGAINST APPLYING RULE T0 i NON-POWER REACTORS, FUEL FACILITIES, I l
| |
| AND OTHER LICENSEES ,
| |
| j
| |
| * CONSTRUCTION PERMIT HOLDERS FAVORED ..
| |
| _ )
| |
| EXPANSION OF RULE.T0 CONSTRUCTION' I SITES.
| |
| l 9
| |
| | |
| 21 e
| |
| CONSTRUCTION (CONT'D)
| |
| RULE WOULD SET GENERAL REQUIREMENTS f FOR SELECTED PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR CONSTRUCT 10N .
| |
| e O
| |
| a I
| |
| I I
| |
| | |
| e 22 7
| |
| t DATE FOR IMPLEMENTATION SEVERAL REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF IMPLEMENTATION RULE WOULD REQUIRE ALL ELEMENTS IMPLEMENTED WITHIN .180 DAYS e
| |
| * ,y f
| |
| | |
| 23 i
| |
| IMPLEMENTATION TO ASSURE ~THAT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES MEET BASIC EXPECTATIONS AND
| |
| ~
| |
| 0THER ELEMENTS ARE IMPLEMENTED: -
| |
| ~
| |
| 9
| |
| * LICENSEES WILL CERTIFY IMPLEMENTATION AND REPORT LOWER CUT-OFF LEVELS 1
| |
| i I
| |
| i
| |
| | |
| ~
| |
| v .
| |
| 24- \
| |
| l i
| |
| IMPLEMENTATION (CONT'D)
| |
| TEMPORARY INSTRUCTION FOR INITIAL REGIONAL INSPECTION WILL ENSURE THAT EACH LICENSEE PROGRAM IS REVIEWED FOR GENERAL COMPLETENESS AND ADEQUATE IMPLEMENTATION.
| |
| l
| |
| (
| |
| 4 5
| |
| 1
| |
| | |
| *d g 25 l
| |
| 1 ENFORCEMENT POLICY ENFORCEMENT POLICY AMENDMENT PROPOSED .
| |
| TO IN'CLUDE FFD IN SUPPLEMENT VII '
| |
| 4
| |
| | |
| 1
| |
| )
| |
| 26 OTHER CHANGES TO THE RULE
| |
| * TEST NOT CONFIRMED POSITIVE UNTIL MR0 REVIEW 0F TEST RESULTS MUST-BE COMPLETED WITHIN 10 DAYS
| |
| ~
| |
| LIMITACCESSTORESULTS}0 PRELIMINARY I
| |
| TESTS .
| |
| BEST-EFFORT VERIFICATION OF EMPLOYMENT HISTORY MEETS " SUITABLE INQUIRY" A
| |
| | |
| 27 1
| |
| OTHER CHANGES (CONT'D)
| |
| * RELIABIf.ITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS ADDED
| |
| {
| |
| TO GENERAL PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES. '
| |
| * PERIOD FOR TESTING PRIOR TO UNESCORTED ACCESS SPECIFIED AS~60 DAYS" -
| |
| * TESTING LABORATORIES SHALL BE'HHS- -
| |
| l CERTIFIED.
| |
| 1 l
| |
| l l
| |
| e
| |
| | |
| 28 OTHER CHANGES (CONT'D)
| |
| SIGNED RELEASE TO SUPPORT " SUITABLE INQUIRY" INCREASED FREQUENCY OF TESTING FOR FIRST 4 MONTHS FOLLOWING REINSTATEMENT -
| |
| l l
| |
| l e
| |
| 4 9
| |
| i S
| |
| _ . . .. _ . .. _ _. _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . - _-. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ ___...m.___._
| |
| | |
| . 4 29 OTHER CHANGES (CONT'D)
| |
| )
| |
| APPEALS' PROCESS CLARIFIED
| |
| - INCLUDES ALL PERSONS TESTED
| |
| . - APPLIES TO TEST RESULTS ONLY 4
| |
| 1 4
| |
| i l
| |
| | |
| On e, 30.
| |
| 4
| |
| .l OTHER CHANGES (CONT')
| |
| 1 ADDITIONAL CATEGORIES OF PERSONS AUTHORIZED ACCESS TO PERSONAL INFORMATION, i
| |
| - THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR DECIDING .
| |
| MATTERS ON REVIEW AND APPEAL
| |
| - PURSUANT TO A COURT ORDER ;
| |
| - AUDITORS l
| |
| 6 4
| |
| | |
| 'hVNNNNNNWNdd1Yd'WGVfVVVfVfVWFVWWtV9VpVgVpVgVgVtVgVWg(g(ghyggygggggggg i TRANSMITTAL TO:
| |
| Document Control Desk, 016 Phillips 4
| |
| p j ADVANCED COPY TO: The Public Document Room
| |
| ! DATE: 2/23/[h i
| |
| g SECY Correspondence & Records Branch j FROM:
| |
| Attached are copies of a Commission meeting transcript and related meeting 5( document ~(s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and ,
| |
| 5.
| |
| placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or f required. .
| |
| Meeting
| |
| | |
| ==Title:==
| |
| M C i 34% M Meeting Date: P,[ f[ pen N , Closed b
| |
| E -
| |
| j Item Description *: Copies ,
| |
| } g Advanced DCS
| |
| '8 4 to POR o Copy, I t 1 ,
| |
| : 1. TRANSCRIPT 1 1 o/i m y i <
| |
| a l2.%-ff-0303.
| |
| f
| |
| & /
| |
| =>
| |
| 25:
| |
| 4.
| |
| N 8
| |
| \
| |
| ! il 5.
| |
| ~ .
| |
| . . _ . _. S
| |
| * PDR is advanced one copy of each document, two of each SECY paper.
| |
| C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SEC 5 papers. gf/
| |
| I $
| |
| (WWA0N@d*@d*@A000@@@@D000W@h0@h0@ho@@@ lily @@
| |
| ^}}
| |