ML20205T089

Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 10CFR26 Re Fitness for Duty Program.Proposed Rule Unnecessary as Utils Have Effective Fitness for Duty Program

ML20205T089
Person / Time
Site:	Dresden
Issue date:	10/28/1988
From:	Peterman K COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
FRN-53FR36795, RULE-PR-26 53FR36795-00016, 53FR36795-16, NUDOCS 8811140110
Download: ML20205T089 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.. 3!_ _e:2 G2 ,

-3FA'.3G?yp i

88 M7/ -4 N1:19 October 28, 1988 r.

I'UC*! .

Kirk Peterman 694 S. River Road Naperville, IL 60540 l Secretary of the Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch RE: Comments on Proposed Rule 10CFR Part 26. "Fitness-for-Duty Pro; ram"

Dear Mr. Secretary:

First I would like to give a brief description of my background, i em a 37 year ol.' employee of the Connonwealth Edison Compar.y and have worked for them for over 11 years. I currently supervise 12 people at the Dresden i Nuclear rower Station. The comments which are provided in this lets.r are my own Individua' views and not necessarily those of my employer.

Commonwealth Edison (Ceco) has had a "Fitness-for-Duty" program in place for a number of years which treads the fine line between s'arving the legitiment needs of the company and being overly obtrusive in the private i lives of its employees. Features of that program include:

1) Pre-employment drug use screenings;

2) "For-cause" drug testing; and

3) An employee assistance program.

Each year a handful of people are found to test positive for drug use. in each case, work which has been performed by those lodivicuals is rechecked.

To my knowledge, there has never been an example of defective workmanship exhibited by those Individuals. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has any cccident been attributed to them. Based upon the above, it appears that '

Ceco's Fitness-for-Duty program is effective in assuring that its employees appear for work each day in a fit condition. Further involvement by the NRC is not warranted.

I 8911140110 001028 PDR PR  ;

26 53FR36795 PDR l l) /o

October 28, 1988 l Page 2  !

?

I cm not going to ;omment on the difficulty or expense of incorporating the  ;

program proposed Dy ths NRC, although both are consideraole. What I am  !

more concerned about is the unwarranted Intrusion lato the lives of private citizens. As representatives of a governe,ent founded upon the principles of Individual liberty, I would think that you should mare concern your- i selves in assuring that currently established licensee Fitness-for-Duty programs did not violate worker rights rather than prescribing more obtusive programs. I might uetter understand the NRC's concern if they had {'

identified a performance problem existing in the Industry and were reluctantly implementing this program to address this problem. Rather, the NRC cited general statisticu st4 ting approximately 25% of the general U.S. population uso drugs. Nowhere do they estimate the use of drugs at licensee ,

facilities nor du they cite performance problems related to drug use. '

Furthermore, the NRC seems to Indicate that most drug use is readily  !

detectacle by otiservation of the user. Tne most critical job in a Nuclear f Facility is that of the Reactor Oparator. In every control room there are  !

always several Individuals. At Dresden there are seldom less than six  ;

peoplu in the control roomi thus, Individuals exhibiting aberrant behavior 3 would be readily observed.

I Lastly, I would like to comment on the constitutionallty of the proposed rule. The forth amendment to the U.$. Constitution provides citizens  !

protection from unreasonable search and .setz u r e . It states that there must exist probable cause before a search of person, papers, or property can be performed. The required search being proposed by the NRC is the most ,

i hgrading search of all. Even the program which CECO has in place is of  ;

I questionable constitutionality as generally a judge's permission must be r l first obtained before the police can conduct searches, even with probable  ;

cause. Clearly, the program being proporad by the NRC goes far ceyond.

In summary, I believe the proposed rule is unnecessary as CECO and all other nuclear utilities have effective Fitness-for-Duty progrcms in place. 6 l

Furthermore, the program being proposed by the NRC is contrary to the forth amendment to the constitutlor. Its implementation will be tied up in the  ;

courts for years and will probably be overturned. The NRC, and the industry,  ;

can better expend their collective and limited resources in other i endeavors to assure safe reactor operation.

(

l Sincerely,

[

v ,

(T 7 ~-~'~~ I

\

/

N '

Kirk Peterman

)

KP: mag l

I l

t