IR 05000313/1987012

Insp Repts 50-313/87-12 & 50-368/87-12 on 870330-0403.Major Areas Inspected:Review of Policies,Procedures & Practices of Fitness for Duty Program & Employee Assistance Program Applicable to Util Employees & Contractors

ML20235F461
Person / Time
Site:	Arkansas Nuclear
Issue date:	06/01/1987
From:	Bush L, Caldwell R, Earnest A, Randy Erickson, Rosano R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV), Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20235F437	List: IR 05000313/1987012 ML20235F435
References
50-313-87-12, 50-368-87-12, NUDOCS 8707130397
Download: ML20235F461 (12)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

. .

.

. U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, OFFICE 0F INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT AND REGION IV

.

Report Nos.: 50-313/87-12 and 50-368/87-12 Docket Nos.: 50-313 and 50-368 License Nos.: DPR-44 and DPR-56 Licensee: Arkansas Power and Light Company ATTN: Mr. John M. Griffin

.. Senior Vice President of I

of' Energy Supply P. O. Box 551 l

Little Rock,. Arkansas 72203 1'

Facility Name: Arkansas Nuclear One Inspection at: Little Rock and Russellville, Arkansas )

'

Inspection Conducted: March 30-April 3,1987 Type of Inspec Announced Special Inspection of Fitness for Duty Program-l Inspectors: .e< e 6Loren L. Bush, Jr.?CnTef, Program Development g [F Date ,

and Review Section

~ M r Inspection and Safeguards, NRR W[oA1 Richard P. Rosano, Security Specialist s x .th/e7

'D'a t e Inspection, Licensing and Research Integration  ;

Branch, NRR

.

S' 2l 87 Hohald A. C n ,11, Securi y Inspector Date Emer _

p edness & '%ds Section, Region IV .

/ dL A. B. EarTeTt, Security' Inspector Gb V7 Date Emergency Preparedness & Safeguards Section, Region.IV Observers: Lawrence A. Yandell, Chief, Emergency Preparedness & Safeguards Section, Region IV '

Eugene W.,McPeek, Reactor Security Specialist, Program Developmen and Review Section, NRR'

Approved By: 6 Y /

Rober/. A. Erickso'n, Chief /Dat'e SafeQuards Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation h

G O

- _ _ . _ .

. ..

l

. t

. 1 Inspection Surnary l

,

'

Areas Inspected: Included review of policies, procedures, and practices of the j Fitness for Duty (FFD) Program and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) 1 applicable to Arkansas Power and Light Company (AP&L) employees and contractors; comparison of the FFD and EAP programs with the program elements recommended in the EEI Guide; and evaluation of supplemental program elements not specifically addressed in the EEI Guid '

Significant observations included: AP&L's written policies differ from some of the features contained in the l Commission's Policy Statement or recommended by the EEI Guide. Most of these differences provide AP&L management latitude in handling problems on l a case by case basi . Chemical tests' of body fluids are used for pre-employment screening of i

,

AP&L employees, pre-badge screening for contractors and selected AP&L I

!

employees, for cause and random tests of AP&L employees and contractors, and follow-up tests of AP&L employees in the EAP and rehabilitated contractors in special cases. Additionally: Testing for alcohol use is given emphasis equal to that given testing for drug ! Urine is collected under direct observatio There are no cutoff limits establishe < Many AP&L employees have never been tested because they were hired before pre-employment testing was initiated and because they have not yet been scheduled for a random test. The same is true for some long ,

term contractor employee l

' Most AP&L supervisors had received the appropriate training whereas most

-

contractor employees had no Nooverallaudithasbeendoneofth$hrograir .

!, . Statistical data that is assembled does not facilitate full analysis of program performanc ' '

The AP&L EAP program appears to be effectiv .

S

.()

,

.O \

s

'

!

.

.

'

, I

. Key Persons Contacted

• T. G. Campbell, Vice President, Nuclear Operations J. H. Levine, Executive Director, AND Site Operations J. R. Marshall, Executive Director, Human Resources T. H. Cogburn. General Manager, Nuclear Services ~

E. C. Ewing, General Manager, Plant Support R. A. Roderick, General Manager, Employment Services and Labor Relations

• L. Humphrey, General Manager, Nuclear Quality l C. W. Dunn, General Manager, Corporate Security D. E. Jones, Licensing Supervisor J. H. Montgomery, AN0 Security Supervisor - Operating G. W. Walker, Senior Human Resource Specialist  :

P. Michalk, Plant Licensing Engineer  !

J. D. Jacks, Plant Licensing Engineer l

• Williams, Chief Steward, IBEW Local 647 Several other supervisory and nonsupervisory personnel were interviewed, including contractors on site, and personnel at the contracted counseling service and Sheriff's Offic . Entrance and u.it Meetings The inspectors met with licensee representatives at AP&L Headquarters on March 30, 1907 to summarize the scope of the inspection. On April 3, 1987, the inspectors met with licensee representatives, as indicated above, to summarize the observations made duriry the inspectio Approach The inspection team compared the AP&L Fitness for Duty Program to each of the Key Program Elements recommended by the "EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty Policy Development," revised August 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the EEI Guide). The AP&L program was also compared to miscellaneous features contained in the'EEI Guide. In addition, the team reviewed the AP&L ;:.ogram for elements not specifically addressed in the EEI Guide which could be used to supplement those recommended in the EEI Guide, including proactive measures to detect the presence of drugs on site. The format of the report reflects this approac Implementation of the EEI Guide Following are the inspectors' observations with respect to the implementation of each of the Key Program Elements recommended by the EEI Guid . Written "olicies AP&L written policies differ from some of the features characterized in the Commission's Policy Statement or recom.nended by the EE1 Suide, as follows:

- Discharge is not required for involvement with illegal drugs while on or of f site or on or off duty, although loss of unescorted access

i

- - _ - _

.

.

.

.

,

usually results. AP&L's policy says that such acts are a dis-chargable offense and that management will consider various factors when

-

determining appropriate action. The policy does state that an employee convicted of an offsite drug offense will be discharged; all other violations of policy may' result in loss of unescorted acces AP&L does not prohibit alcohol from company property ando'peratio AP&L prohibits " unauthorized" possession or consumption of alcohol on AP&L property. This was intended to permit the Site Director to approve requests for consumption of alcoholic beverages at the recreation area on station propert Handling of drug or alcohol use among employees in designated positions is not described; AP&L believes all ANO employees should be treated the same and does not use designated position Testing for drugs is not mandated when an employee is involved with drugs off duty and off company premises or as a condition for retention. (The EEI Guide recommends that company policy mandate testing for those in designated positions in this instance, however, AP&L does not use designated positions). AP&L policy allows the AND Site Director and Department General Manager to determine whether testing should be conducted for cause or as a condition of reinstatement.

i

-

Employees are not informed that appropriate measures will be taken to l determine the scope of illegal involvement with drugs, i.e., to l

identify source of the drugs, and other employees who may be involve . Top Management Support The inspectors concluded that top management supports the FFD and EAP programs. AP&L top management makes the final decision on whether to test for cause, and whether an employee should be reinstated, including the conditions for reinstatement such as follow-up testing. The Site Manager met with employees on site to explain the FFD program when it was being introduced. Although there is no program manager designated, the General Manager, Plant Support has been formally assigned overall responsibility for interpreting and implementing the FFD policy and progra Management enforcement of the policies was reported by those interviewed as being equitable and fair, although there were some comments made about the fact that members of the bargaining unit are not required to take the random test. (This situation will exist until the grievance concer. ring random testing is settled by arbitration.)

Adequate funds, resources, and facilities appear to be availabl . Effective Policy Communication The inspectors interviewed several AP&L and contractor employees and determined that most AP&L employees interviewed had received awareness l -3-

-_ _

.

.

.

.

- training,_whereas most contractor em

.

contractorprovidingguardservices)ployeesinterviewed(exceptBurns,the had not received awareness trainin This interview data was reported by AP&L management as being consistent with the actual situation. Specific data was not available, as' discussed-in paragraph D.4, below. Two AP&L employees could not remember an awareness training and reported that they had not received the. General Employee Refresher training for approximately eighteen months. Most contractor employees reported they had acquired a basic familiarity with the policy by reading occasional publications and attending safety meet-ings. _ A'few AP&L and contractor employees reported that they had received training in the hazards associated with alcohol'and drug abus Although there have not been any articles published in Company sponsored publications, other awareness information, including brochures and posters, are periodically provided the employee . Behavioral Observation Trair.ing for Supervisors AP&L management reported that they were responsible for training both AP&L-and contractor supervisors. Responsibility for training the contractors

.

l

'

was assumed by AP&L within the past two months; no AP&L-conducted supervisory training for contractors had been performed as ye Of the AP&L supervisors interviewed, most had been trained, were knowledge-able of the program, and understood their responsibilities. The contractor supervisors interviewed who had received training were all senior managemen All others interviewed reported that they had not received any trainin Because AP&L did not have a computer program that would identify who had l not received required training, accurate data could not be obtained. AP&L management stated that they planned to develop such a capabilit '

l The AP&L supervisory training program includes three and one-half hours of i policy awareness training and twenty hours of behavioral observation training.

'

5. Policy Implementation Training for Supervisors  ;

l See paragraph D.4 abov ]

6. Union Briefing ,

AP&L management reported that they had briefed the Business Manager, Inter-national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) prior to communicating the initial policy to AP&L employees, and prior to the change that added .

random testing. The collective bargaining agreement requires that official contact between AP&L and IBEW be with the Business Manager, who is located !

in Little Rock. The site steward reported that he had not been briefe The site steward stated, as previously reported by AP&L management, that random testing was an issue under arbitration. He also stated that latitude in the program permits inconsistent implementatio i l

,

1 -4-

!

-

.

.

.

,

' 7. Contractor Notification-

-

There is ~ standard language' inserted into every contract for work performed at ANO informing the contractor and its employees of the AP&L Fitness for Duty Program and requiring compliance with it. All new contractor employees are subjected to pre-badging chemical testing for alcohol and drugs by AP& . Law Enforcement Liaison-The written agreements established in accordance with the security plan I between Pope _ County Sheriff's Office and the site apply p:trtially to this element. These agreements detail the cooperation.between the two groups-and, although there is no specific written agreement related to drugs or alcohol, each understands its role. See paragraphs F.5.c and e, below for j additional informatio l 9. Chemical Testing of Body Fluids AP&L has established an onsite facility for collecting body fluids and I conducting screening tests. Chemical tests of body fluids for pre-employ-ment screening of AP&L employees, pre-badge screening for contractors and selected AP&L employees, for cause and random tests of AP&L employees and q contractors, and_ follow-up tests of AP&L employees in the EAP and rehabili- l tated contractors in special cases. AP&L bargaining unit employees can I currently refuse a random test because the matter is under arbitratio (If the arbitrator finds in favor of AP&L, those who have been previously selected for a random test and refused will be tested.) Also tested (effective May 20,1987) are personnel who will be working inside the  ;

protected area in an escorted access status for more than three consecu- l tive days. Confirmatory tests are conducted on all presumptive positive screening tests. The testing for drugs is by urinalysis; testing for alcohol, which is given equal emphasis in the program, uses a breathalyzer confirmed by a blood test. Many AP&L employees have never been tested because they were hired before the pre-employment testing was initiated and because they have not yet been scheduled for a random test. The same is true for some long term contractor employee The final decision on whether to test for cause and follow-up testing to verify abstinence from alcohol and drugs has been retained by senior site managemen Collection of Sample Urine,~ breath, and blood samples are collected by, or under direct  ;

observation of, laboratory personnel to assure validity and prevent compromise of the sample. However, the facility used does not permit direct observation in the true sense due to visual obstructions. The laboratory technician performs subjective tests relating to temperature and color of the' sampl __-_______-_____ - _-

_ __- ._

--

.

.

..

. Control and Transfer of the Sample The urine sample is collected directly.in a plastic container. If the !

scra ping test is' positive, a portion of the sample is poured into- 1 '

another. plastic container, placed into a shipping box, and the box-is tamper sealed prior to shipment to the confirmation testing laboratory. The remainder of the sample is capped (not sealed) and i provided secure storage in a freezer for one year. A courier picks i up presumptive positive samples each work day for. shipment to j International Clinical Laboratories,'Inc. (ICL) in Nashville,

'

Tennessee. Confirmatory tests of blood samples are conducted by-ICL'.

The urine samples are forwarded to the National Medical Services (NMS) laboratory in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania for confirmation testin Chain of custody is established at the time the sample is collecte Testing of the Sample The inspectors did not visit the ICL laboratory; the NMS laboratory "

!

was visited during a previous FFD inspection'of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station (Inspection Report- 50-277/87-06; a'nd 50-278/87-06), j

AP&L uses an enzyme-multiplied immunoassay test (EMIT) for initial I screening of urine. No cutoff is established; if there are any ,

traces of the drugs being tested, the result is.a presumptive '

positive, i

All confirmation tests are by gas chromatography coupled with mass I spectrometry (GC/MS). If the presence of the substance is confirmed ;

in any quantity, the sample is reported as being tested positiv ]

The AP&L testing program, especially when random testing of all .

, employees and contractors is fully implemented, should be able to detect " casual" or occasional use of drugs.

l  ; Reporting Results The onsite medical staff promptly reports presumptive positive tests to AP&L management, the results are documented, but no written report is provided. AP&L management may take action at this point to deny access, depending on the circumstances of each case. Results of con-firmation tests are received initially by telephone about seven days after the sample was collected. The written report is usually

"

received about two weeks after the sample was collecte Employee Comments'on Chemical festing l

During interviews of AP&L and contractor supervisors and line employees, several comments were made concerning the testing program:

'

-6-L L

-

.

.

.

, - Many AP&L employees believe tha't random testing is a deterrent

,

to, drug us any AP&L supervisors and employees and a few contractor super-visors and employees stated that random testing should be more frequent and include a larger percentage of employee A few of those interviewed objected to random testin Half of the AP&L supervisors and many of the AP&L employees believe that grandfathering should be eliminated and all ;

employees teste !

- Nearly half of the AP&L employees expressed doubt about the accuracy of the technology used for the testing. A few .

i supervisors and line employees believe that more training and publicity would eliminate fears of the technology and the accuracy of the testing and promote the progra Some isolated comments of interest were that AP&L should publicize participation by senior management in the testing program, that the reporting of prescription drugs is not sufficiently stressed; and the ,

lack of privacy during the witnessing of voidin . Employee Assistance Programs AP&L has contracted with PROMAX of Little Rock to administer their EAP, to advise AP&L management as appropriate, to assist in the . training program, and to provide counseling and referral services. PROMAX assisted AP&L in developing the EAP program, which was implemented about three years ag l The EAP program is limited to AP&L personnel. Contractors are not required to have an EAP; however, Burns has a separate contract with PROMAX. An interest in the availability of an EAP was frequently expressed by q contractor personnel interviewed by the inspector '

To protect against possible law suits, PROMAX requires that there be two !

independent clinical determinations that a person is not fit for dut !

Each clinical interview takes approximately one hour. The whole process, including psychological testing typically takes four hours. Follow-ups are conducted at 90 and 180 days, and possibly longer depending upon the nature of the problem. PROMAX tries to develop corroborated information that identifies potential problem areas which are-then passed on to AP& If an employee is determined to be unfit for duty, PROMAX will inform AP&L management, even when a self-referral would have granted confidentiality (as usually provided in typical'EAP programs). AP&L provides prior notification to employees via'their policy that AP&L will be contacted only if the counselor determines that their behavior could be interpreted as a potential detriment to safe operation EAP program performance data that has been accumulated does not lend

! itself to full analysis. AP&L management plans to require PROMAX to I provide data that will facilitate analysis and program adjustments.

l t

'

-7-

'

_ _ _ _ _ _

. - - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _

.

.,

"

.

'

.

. Information provided indicates that PROMAX counseled 135 persons in 1986 (80emplo

,

provided)yees and 55 dependents),

were employed 105 of which at ANO, or are dependents (no employed of those breakdown at could be3 ANO. Although no specific data has been kept, PROMAX estimates that 1 approximately 95% of those counseled were self-referrals; AP&L estimates that about six were referred by supervisors during the past four year PROMAX stated that fitness for duty is an issue with a very small number

, of those being counseled, about 5 people over the past 4 years. PROMAX l has concluded, based upon incremental increases in EAP program utilization, that testing, especially random testing, has encouraged use of the EA t Miscellaneous EEI Guide Features Following are the inspectors' ot:ervations with respect to miscellaneous l features of the EEI Guid . Substance Abuse Committee A Substance Abuse Committee has not been established, however, key people do fulfill some typical committee functions on an ad hoc basi . Periodic Audits To date there has been no audit of the Fitness for Duty Program. The first audit is planned for the last quarter of CY-1987. Thereafter the program will be audited in conjunction with the annual security program atdits. Although an audit plan has not been developed, the audit will determine if AP&L's program meets the EEI Guide, examine implementation, and judge its effectiveness. AP&L management plans to train the lead auditor, and obtain technical expertise to assist in the audi . Records and Reports _

Some data is collected concerning the chemical testing program. Although this data is provided to management and some analysis is conducted, the absence of in-depth collection and analysis of data and not providing the analyzed data to all management entities with FFD program responsibilities (normally the Substance Abuse Committee) inhibits optimal understanding of j program performance and making appropriate modifications to the progra '

As discussed in paragraph D.10 above, EAP program performance data that has been accumulated does not lend itself to full analysi Supplemental Program Elements - Not in EEI Guide The NRC Policy Statement and EEI Guide describe a general approach to the design of fitness for duty programs. It is expected that each of the program elements contained in the EEI Guide will be addressed in licensee programs. In l

order to gain information on the use and effectiveness of additional practices

, which might be used by industry in developing an overall program, the inspectors i also reviewed selected areas not included in the guidance. It is emphasized j that the following description of areas reviewed is not an indication that such j program elements are or may become requirement i l

i

-8-l

_-- _ _ - _ _ _ 1

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

-

-

.

.

.

, Written Procedures Written procedures are intended to implement the policy, define actions to be taken in certain situations, and assign responsibilities to ensure proper accomplishment of the actions. Procedures would also reduce the likelihood that the actions would be mishandle Written procedures have been developed to cover most appropriate situations.

l Professional Counseling Services l

Professional counseling services are intended to manage and cany out the program, and provide iritial diagnosis of the problem and referral to the proper professional care. This would be particularly important in the diagnosis and treatment of substance abuse and emotional instabilit Professional counseling services are provided under contract by PROMAX of Little Rock. See paragraph D.10 abov . Employment Screening Practices Employment screening practices are intended to assure that employees are reliable and trustworthy and to eliminate from consideration those known to be unreliable, i.e., a drug abuser without evidence of rehabilitatio ]ll The practices would include background investigations, psychological tests, interviews, and periodic rescreenin Pre-employment screening practices appear to be consistent with the proposed industry guidelines for an access authorization program. Pre-employment screening is conducted by each contractor in accordance with ,

the AP&L Personnel Screening Procedur . Legal Reviews Legal reviews would assure that company policies and procedures, contracts, and unica agreements meet constitutional and legal requirements with respect to fitness for dut Attorneys were involved in the development of the program and have reviewed it to ensure legal sufficiency. The current union agreement is scheduled for a third-year language negotiation in 1988. Legal reviews will be a part of that process. Legal representatives have reviewed the standard language inserted into all contracts relating to Fitness for Duty commitment . Proactive heasures to Detect the Presence of Druos Onsite These measures are intended to provide evidence of onsite drug problems before they would be manifested in observable aberrant behavior. These measures could also provide a deterrent on onsite drug abus ,

'

.

, J

'

, Chemical Testing of Body Fluids ]

Chemical' testing of body fluids is a powerful tool for the i detection and prevention of drug abuse. See paragraph.D.9,  ;

above, for a detailed discussion of AP&L's chemical testing )

'

progra ,

b. Searchas Searches can be an effective means of discovering any alcohol or other drugs that may have been introduced into the workplac Searches can be an effective deterren There have been searches of the workplace for drugs by the security 1

staff. No effort is made to publicize such searches in order to  !

realize the deterrent effec j c. Investigations l

-

i Investigations are used.to determine the facts associated with illegal involvement with drugs, and are an appropriate response to

'

allegations and other investigative leads. Investigations are also~ ..

useful in determining whether there is an existing or potential .l

.

proble AP&L Site Security investigates leads relating to minor violations of' i the policy and calls in corporate security to handle more extensive  !

investigations. When necessary, the sheriff's office can be called in to provide expert support. These three organizations appear to share information of interest, d. Mechanism for Discreet Expression of Concerns A mechanism for discreet expressions of concern can facilitate unrestricted flow of information from those who, for many reasons,

-

l may be reluctant to provide important information to managemen PROMAX has provided a hotline to be used by AP&L employees for  !

seeking help with personal problems, including drug.and alcohol  !

abuse. The number is posted on bulletin boards and provided to AP&L  :

t employees on wallet-sized cards. Although non-AP&L employees were i also aware of the telephone number, they are not eligible to use the 1

'

PROMAX services. Furthermore, the number is not intended for report- i ing allegations of suspected drug use (PROMAX would pass such informa-tion on to appropriate AP&L staff). AP&L and contractor' employees- -

'

are requested to report their concerns to Site Security or their supervisor, however, this procedure may not provide confidentiality.

l r

l

- 10 -

- _ _ - - - _ - - - - _ . - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - _ - - - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - -

.

,

.

'

~'

'

e. Information from Law Enforcement Authorities

,

Law enforcement authorities may provide useful information concerning drug activity in the local community, especially employee involvemen Law enforcement authorities provide information concerning offsite drug activity that may ultimately affect employee performance on the job. See paragraph F.5.c abov l

!

l l

l l

\

1 i

',

I i

l l

!

l

,

- 11 - 1