ML18052B449
| ML18052B449 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 01/15/1988 |
| From: | Berry K CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION & RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (ARM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8801210207 | |
| Download: ML18052B449 (15) | |
Text
--.
consumers Power PllWERINli MICHlliAN'S PROliRESS General Offices:
1945 West Parnall Road, Jackson, Ml 49201 * (517) 788-1636 January 15, 1988 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 DOCKET 50-255 - LICENSE DPR PALISADES PLANT -
RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT 50-255/87-021 Kenneth W Berry Director Nuclear Licensing NRC Inspection Report 50-255/87-021 dated November 8, 1987 and received November 16, 1987 requested Consumers Power Company to provide a response within 60 days of receipt of the inspection report.
This inspection report described areas where Consumers Power Company's fitness for duty program did not appear to meet certain standards adopted by the Nuclear Power Industry as described in the NRC's Policy Statement on Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel (51FR27921) and the EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol/Fitness for Duty Policy Development.
Consumers Power Company is providing by way *of the attached response, our clarification to several points made in the inspection report.
Kenneth W Berry Director, Nuclear Licensing CC Administrator, Region III, NRC NRC Resident Inspector - Palisades Attachment 8801210207 880115 PDR ADOCK 05000255 Q
PDR OC0188-0009-NL02
OC0188-0009-NL02 ATTACHMENT Consumers Power Company Palisades Plant Docket 50-255 RESPONSE TO INSPECTION REPORT 50-255/87-021 Fitness for Duty January 15, 1988 13 Pages
RESPONSE TO THE NRC INSPECTION REPORT 50-255/87-021 Fitness for Duty Several points contained in the NRC inspection report require clarification:
NRC Comment Page 3; "Policy does not prohibit being under the influence of controlled substances."
CP Co Response 1
The NRC comment is not correct.
The Company Policy prohibits any illegal use of controlled substances.
Clearly an employee cannot be under the influence of a controlled substance without having first used the substance.
Therefore, any employee under the influence of an illegal controlled substance would clearly be in violation of the Policy.
The Policy of CP Co clearly states:
"PROHIBITED USE B.
Controlled Substances An employee must not engage in the illegal possession, manufacture, sale, delivery or use of controlled substances either on or off the job."
(emphasis added)
Furthermore, it is much easier to prove that an employee has used a controlled substance than to prove that the employee is under the influence.
Urine tests do not show that a person is currently under the influence.
Even blood tests may not conclusively show that a person is under the influence because some persons are less susceptible to certain drugs than other people.
MI1287-0118B-NL03
When an employee appears to have used either alcohol or controlled substances, this provides the foundation for Management to require a medical evaluation.
The medical evaluation is not limited to an alcohol or drug test.
This is structured to assure that the true causes of aberrant behavior are discovered and appropriate remedies are more quickly implemented.
When this testing, based on reason to believe an employee has used prohibited substances, is combined with the periodic testing it is clear that the Company Policy not only prohibits being under the influence, but also is more strin-gent.
The Policy prohibits even use which does not result in the employee being under the influence.
Any illegal drug use makes the employee subject to discharge.
NRC Comment 2
Page 3; "For alcohol, the Policy requires that employees not evidence any effects of the consumption of alcohol.
'Evidencing any effects' stems from the old policy that was based on mere observation of the effects rather than establishing impairment through a test."
CP Co Response The CP Co Policy is much more restrictive than suggested by this comment.
The Policy provides:
"An employee must (1) not drink alcoholic beverages during the time the em-ployee is being paid by the Company, (2) not drink alcoholic beverages on Company property, (3) not drink alcoholic beverages during a meal period if the employee is to return to work after the meal, (4) not report for a scheduled work assignment evidencing any effects of alcoholic beverage consumption, and (5) not transport or bring alcoholic beverages onto Company property or be in possession of alcoholic beverages while on Company property."
MI1287-0118B-NL03
It is true that the words "evidencing any effects" are based upon an old policy.
The Company has found this Policy much more enforceable than any policy based upon impairment.
It covers all impairment cases since any impairment caused by the effects of alcohol is considered "evidencing any effects."
For certain ranges of alcohol in the body, the tests do not prove impairment.
An employee with alcohol on his breath is evidencing the effects, and thus is subject to discipline, even if he has no impairment.
NRC Comment Page 3; "Immediate revocation of access to vital areas is not described."
CP Co Response 3
Both the Policy and Procedures specify that unescorted access will be revoked in the event of a violation of the Policy.
The Company's practice is to immediately revoke unescorted access.
The Company will propose a change in the Policy and Procedures to add the word "immediately."
NRC Comment Page 3; "Discharge is not specified for the sale, use, or possession of illegal drugs while on the job or on Company property.
Furthermore, discharge is not specified for the illegal sale of narcotics, drugs or controlled substances when off duty and when off Company premises.
CP Co's Policy says that those committing such violations will be subject to discharge, except where the sole offense (of the Policy) is the presence of alcohol or a controlled substance as shown by periodic testing.
Such an employee may be subject to more frequent testing, and any subsequent violations result in discharge."
CP Co Response The Policy clearly provides that any employee who violates the Policy with respect to controlled substances shall be subject to discharge, whether the MI1287-0118B-NL03
- violation occurs on or off the job.
The exception noted by the NRC applies only if the employee successfully completes an approved treatment activity through the Employee Assistance Service, and only if the employee's sole offense is a positive test during the periodic testing.
There is no exception to discharge for controlled substance violation if the employee is involved in the sale of controlled substances on or off the job.
CP Co's experience and judgment is that labor arbitrators may not sustain a policy which simply states that an employee will be discharged for violation.
EEI Guidelines do not call for automatic discharge.
EEI Guidelines state, "The written policy statement should include the following important features:
F.
Violation of the company's policy may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination."
4 The NRC's Policy Statement found at 51 Fed Reg 27921 (August 4, 1986) does not specify that discharge is required.
The Policy Statement specifies that sale, use, or possession within the protected area will result in discharge from nuclear power plant activity, but this does not necessarily mean that an employee must be discharged from all employment.
For any other sale, use or possession of drugs, the NRC Policy Statement merely calls for possible discharge and mandatory rehabilitation prior to reinstatement of*
access.
The Company believes its policy is fully within the spirit of the EEI Guidelines and the NRC Policy Statement.
NRC Comment Page 3; "Alcohol is not prohibited by CP Co policy from the protected area or from Company property and operations.
The Policy does prohibit employees from transporting or bringing alcoholic beverages onto Company property and from possessing alcoholic beverages while on Company property.
As written, the Policy enables Management to permit the use of alcohol during authorized functions."
MI1287-0118B-NL03
5 CP Co Response The Company's Policy is quite clear on this subject and is quite different from the inspection report..In fact, a direct quote from the Policy reveals the following:
"PROHIBITED USE" A.
Alcohol An employee must (1) not drink alcoholic beverages during the time the employee is being paid by the Company, (2) not drink alcoholic beverages on Company property, (3) not drink alcoholic beverages during a meal period if the employee is to return to work after the meal, (4) not report for a scheduled work assignment evidencing any effects of alcoholic beverage consumption, and (5) not transport or bring alcoholic beverages onto Company property or be in possession of alcoholic beverages while on Company property."
The basic idea that alcohol is prohibited from protected areas as well as all other Company facilities has been the policy of CP Co for several years and is well understood by all employees.
In addition to being posted, it's also a written rule contained in the Accident Prevention Manual which is distributed to all employees every two years.
The Procedures do indeed contain a very limited exemption:
"Limited exemptions to the alcohol provisions of this Policy may be granted only by the Vice President - Human Resources.
An exemption must be applied for at least ten (10) days in advance of its effective date.
An exemption is not effective unless it is received in writing.
A copy of the exemption must be present at the location for which such exemption is claimed."
This exemption is intended to allow such things as the after-hours consumption of alcoholic beverages by employees staying overnight at the Company's MI1287-0118B-NL03
6 Conference Center in South Haven, Michigan.
The exemption has not been and will not be applied to allow any use of alcoholic beverages in the protected area of a nuclear power plant.
NRC Comment Page 3; "Testing for drugs is not specified 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 specify testing for those in desig-nated positions in this instance; however, CP Co does not use designated positions.)
CP Co Policy requires the employee in this instance to participate in a medical evaluation which may include testing.
CP Co Response The Procedures require that:
"If Management has reason to believe that an employee is using alcohol or controlled substances in violation of the Policy, Management will require that employee to participate in a medical evaluation approved by the Company."
See Page 3 of the Procedures.
Since unlawful drug use off duty and off Company premises is a violation of the Policy, a medical evaluation is required if the Company has knowledge of drug use under such circumstances.
Furthermore, Subparagraph 6a on Page 4 of the Procedures specifies that whenever a medical examination is required under this requirement, "Personnel at the testing facility will administer a breath analysis and/or collect a urine specimen as outlined in the Drug Test Urine Collection Procedure." Thus, it is clear that if the medical evaluation is based upon reason to be 0lieve that drug use has occurred, a drug test will be given whether that use was on or off the job.
The statement that the Company has not designated positions for testing is incorrect.
The Company has designated every employee who has unescorted access as subject to testing.
MI1287-0118B-NL03
7 Clearly, when viewed collectively, the Policy and Procedures require testing for drugs and/or alcohol, as appropriate to the circumstances.
The addition of an examination by a Company-approved physician makes the Company's Fitness for Duty Program more likely to reveal the true causes of an employee's problems and in a shorter time span than solely relying on a drug urinalysis. It should also be noted the procedure requires the employee be suspended from work and sent or taken home pending test results.
NRC Comment Page 4; "Policy does not inform employees:
- That law enforcement officials will be notified whenever suspected illegal drugs are found.
Written procedures do provide for such notifications."
CP Co Response Written Procedures clearly require notification to law enforcement officials whenever suspected illegal drugs are found.
The Company will propose a change in the Policy to provide notice of this fact to employees.
NRC Comment Page 4; "CP Co Management stated that their program was designed to place more emphasis on periodic testing than on behavioral observation.
This was done because CP Co Management believes there is a natural reluctance to confront employees and that such a design would prevent disruption of existing super-visory relationships with employees."
CP Co Response The Company does not believe this comment accurately represents Management's attitude.
Although such a statement may have been made by some individual, the MI1287-0118B-NL03
8 Company's Fitness for Duty Program contains and implements many elements designed to achieve the goal of a drug-free work environment.
These include:
(1) training supervisors in the recognition of human traits (behavior and performance) that would be indicative of employee involvement with drugs, alcohol or other problems, (2) a vigorous employee assistance program was instituted to encourage troubled employees to voluntarily and confidentially seek assistance, (3) development of a testing program that will reveal drug and alcohol abuse by employees even though there may not be displayed the asso-ciated atypical behavior, (4) extension of the testing to include applicants for employment, or (5) testing of employees who may have been temporarily away from work (thus not under observation by supervision) before they are permitted to return to work.
All of these elements are expected to be fully utilized.
The Procedures provide on Page 9:
X.
TRAINING The local Human Resources Department shall provide employees and super-visors with health and safety information on controlled substances and alcohol, and make known the impact that such use on and off the job can have on job performance (see Awareness Materials List - Exhibit 6).
Training of supervisors will include guidance as to the appropriate actions when a supervisor is informed that an employee is taking a prescribed drug or over-the-counter drug which may have an effect on employees' ability to perform their jobs. It is the responsibility of local Management to ensure that supervisors are adequately trained in recognizing and dealing with problems relating to the use of alcohol and controlled substances.
Such provision of information and training should be conducted in accordance with the Company's Employee Assistance Service Program (Exhibit 2).
The Company will reemphasize to its supervisors that it is their obligation to observe employees' behavior and performance for possible drug or alcohol abuse and to take appropriate action in the event that they observe signs of such abuse.
Such training for supervisors will be held at least every second year.
MI1287-0118B-NL03
9 NRC Comment Page 5; "Interviews confirmed that those employed by CP Co at the time the Fitness for Duty Program was implemented had received awareness training.
However, no additional training or meetings have been provided on Fitness for Duty.
For other employees, interviews confirmed that after the initial GET, no subsequent awareness training has been provided."
CP Co Response The Policy is a permanent posting and all new employees are informed of it.
The Company has not identified a need for further training; however, a mecha-nism does exist if employees feel a need for further training.
Monthly safety and health meetings are conducted by supervisors at each facility.
A Fitness for Duty packet distributed to Human Resource Departments on August 13, 1987 contains a list of no less than 17 videotapes dealing with drugs and alcohol, 2 sets of slides dealing with employee assistance, 52 pamphlets covering drug, alcohol, smoking, stress, attitudes, changing life-style and Michigan Law relative to alcohol.
In addition, there are also 3 books and 4 booklets available on drugs and alcohol all of which are made available to supervisors and others.
NRC Comment Page 7; "Control and Transfer of the Sample"; Sentence 6 -
"To address employee concerns about possible collusion and tampering with the sample, CP Co has not established an onsite screening laborato_ry as many other licensees have."
CP Co Response The decision to use a contractor to collect and analyze the urine specimens was predicated on having a professional, clinical laboratory collect and handle the body fluids.
The Company does not have anyone in its employ who is trained in clinical laboratory procedures.
Furthermore, to establish onsite screening would not be economically feasible since there would have to be a minimum of MI1287-0118B-NL03
10 five such sites in Company facilities to accommodate all the unescorted access employees in the Company.
The five locations are geographically located so as to be more conducive to a traveling contractor rather than onsite testing facilities.
NRC Comment Page 8; "The inspectors noted that the CP Co cutoff limits significantly varied from that recommended by Duo Research for the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), the American Counsel for Drug Education and the Department of Defense.
CP Co's cutoff limits would probably detect heavy users who are addicted to the drugs in question; however, they may not identify 'casual' or occasional use."
CP Co Response The cutoff limits were selected in 1985 when pre-employment drug screening was begun on a limited basis. *The cutoff limits for THC (Marijuana) were estab-lished at 100 nanograms per milliliter of urine.
The major concern at that time was to reduce or prevent a successful challenge through legal means by an applicant who was denied employment because of a failure in the drug urinalysis.
When the Fitness for Duty Policy and Procedures were developed in late 1985 in response to the EEI Guideline (for which there are no stated cutoff levels),
again the issues were reviewed.
There appeared to be no reasons to change the cutoff levels.
The goal of our periodic testing program is to provide a deterrent to illegal drug and alcohol use.
Subjecting employees to a periodic, unannounced test once each six months is hitting the goal dead center.
The Department of Health and Human Services recently proposed "Scientific and Technical Guidelines for Federal Drug Testing Programs" to implement President Reagan's Executive Order 12564 (52 Fed Reg 30638, August 14, 1987).
MI1287-0118B-NL03
The following cutoffs were recommended by the Department of Health and Human Services:
11 Initial Test Level (ng/mL)
Confirmatory Test Level (ng/mL)
Marijuana Metabolites Cocaine Metabolites Opiates Phencyclidine Amphetamines 100 300 300 25 1000 20 150 300 25 300 The Marijuana level recommended there is the same as the level used by the Company, and the recommended Amphetamine level is higher than the Company's level, as are some of the confirmation test levels.
Thus, it is clear that there is considerable variation in recommended cutoff levels from various reliable sources.
The Company is continuing to study this matter and may or may not make adjustments, depending upon the results of further research.
In response to NRC concerns about "casual or occasional use," we reviewed the results of 350 samples previously reported as negative.
The samples were randomly selected by Garcia Clinical Laboratory.
No discrepancies were noted between EMIT and TLC.
These results support our contention that there is no objective evidence which would cause CP Co to lower its cutoff levels at this time.
NRC Comment Page 8; Reporting Results "However, since the testing program is designed with high cutoff levels in conjunction with the requirement for dual positive screening tests, it would appear possible that an employee who has abused drugs is permitted to remain on MI12$7-0118B-NL03
the job several days after the initial screening results of a periodic unan-nounced test are known to GCL."
CP Co Response 12 Apparently the inspectors feel the Company should take action on the basis of the screening tests, rather than waiting for confirmation.
We disagree.
This is the second reference to what the inspectors feel is a noteworthy point.
Earlier on Page 7, Paragraph C, "Testing of the Sample," a term "presumption positive" appears.
First, the EEI Guideline does not suggest any actions be taken on "presump-tion." Rather, the theme is caution.
On Page 25, the EEI guidelines state:
- 111f a company decides that chemical testing is desirable for any of the pur-poses described above, experience has shown that considerable care must be taken to ensure that testing results are accurate and that the program serves as an effective deterrent to illegal drug use."
This is reaffirmed by the proposed "Scientific and Technical Guidelines for Federal Drug Testing Programs," which state:
"All specimens negative on the initial test or negative on the confirmatory test shall be reported as nega-tive.
Only specimens confirmed positive shall be reported positive for a specific drug."
52 Fed Reg 30641 (August 14, 1987) (emphasis in the original)
Even the manufacturers of the screening tests admit that some false positive results may occur.
Accuracy is not ensured until the results are confirmed.
Therefore the Company does not feel that it would be appropriate to take action on the basis of unconfirmed screening tests.
NRC Comment Page 10; "Even though the confidentiality usually provided self-referrals has.
MI1287-0118B-NL03 l
~
~
13 not been breached to date, OHC stated they would inform CP Co Management if an employee was determined to be unfit for duty and constituted a safety concern.
CP Co Management has not informed their employees, preferable in the Policy Statement, of this practice."
CP Co Response This addition to the Policy Statement will be taken under advisement.
Inclu-sion of such a statement may cause those seeking help on their own to not seek such help if a breach of confidentiality is likely.
NRC Comment Page 10; "A Substance Abuse Committee has not been established, nor do key people fulfill committee functions on an ad hoc basis."
CP Co Response The Vice President - Human Resources administers the Fitness for Duty Program.
In addition, an ad hoc group deals with important issues arising under the Fitness for Duty Program.
The ad hoc group is currently composed of the following people:
William R Mills, Manager - Union Relations William B Mosher, Medical Administrator - Corporate Safety and Health Kenneth W Berry, Director - Nuclear Licensing John P Dickey, Attorney MI1287-0118B-NL03