ML20135H870

Testimony of LL Bush Re Conservation Council of North Carolina Contention WB-3 Concerning Drug Use During Const. Related Correspondence

ML20135H870
Person / Time
Site:	Harris
Issue date:	09/23/1985
From:	Bush L NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE)
To:
Shared Package
ML20135H861	List: ML20135H860 ML20135H868 ML20135H870
References
OL, NUDOCS 8509240330
Download: ML20135H870 (14)

Text

_

DOLMETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSInN 985 SEP 23 A11:49 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 0FRG 03Stuk:A caCKETisG & SEPVF -

B3ANCH In the Matter of )

)

CAROLINA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY AND )

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN MUNICIPAL ) Docket Nos. 50-400 OL POWER AGENCY 50-40I OL (Shearon Parris Nuclear Power Plant, )

Units 1 and 2) )

TESTIMONY OF LOREN L. BUSH, JR. CONCERNING CCNC CONTENTION WB-3 Q.1, What is your name, position and professional background?

A.1. My name is Loren L. Bush, Jr. I am a Senior Security Specialist with the Operating Reactors Branch, Division of Inspection Programs, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I have been employed by the NRC since June 1976. Prior to joining the NRC, I served over 20 years in the U.S. army and worked as a security consultant to the nuclear industry. I received a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration from the University of Florida in 1965, and have taken graduate studies in management. In addition, I have completed numerous training courses in that field, most recently a series of graduate level seminars at George Washington University in Contemporary Executive Development.

While in the military, I received extensive training in the identification and effects of drug abuse and in the laws of arrest, search, and seizure. Over the past 15 years, I have attended many seminars that reinforced that original training. I have organized I

85<ME24CKR30 85(PE20 1 PDR ADOCK 05000400 0 PDR

_ g.

~

and conducted a seminar on the identification and effect of drugs (with Harold Patin, President of Drug Education Associates). I have been certified by the American Society for Industrial Security as a protection professional; the examination subjects included substance abuse, legal aspects, and management.

k'hile in the military, I had several command and senior staff assignments with the Army's Criminal Investigation Division. Many of the investigations concerned drugs; many of the drug investi-gations were conducted by undercover agents and were targeting drug sources and distribution systems, some of which were international in scope. I also had a crime laboratory under my control for processing forensic evidence which included drugs. My duties with the NRC the past few years have included working with the proposed rule and proposed policy statement relating to fitness for duty. I was a member of the NRC Task Force that surveyed the drug and alcohol programs of ten licensed nuclear utilities, of two federal agencies, and of two large corporations in 1981-82. The non-nuclear programs surveyed were the Department of Defense, Federal Aviation Administration, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, and General Motors Corporation. The survey was conducted to determine the common elements and management attitudes that constituted what was perceived by the Staff to be the better drug and alcohol programs.

That survey is reported in NUREG-0903, " Survey of~ Industry and Government Programs to Combat Drug and Alcohol Abuse", dated June 1982. .I also was responsible for consolidating all NRC comments and

l 1

i initially developing the Office of Inspection and Enforcement position on the electrical utility industry standard on drug abuse issued by the Edison Electrical Institute (EEI).

Q.2. What is the purpose of your testimony?

A.2. The purpose of my testimony is to set forth the Staff's position on Contention WB-3 in so far as that Contention relates to the j Applicants' drug prevention and detection program. My testimony describes the current' regulatory situation relating to drug abuse in the nuclear industry, and compares CP&L's drug prevention program with the standard being adopted by the nuclear industry.

Q.3. What are the rules, policies, and standards pertaining to drug abuse in the nuclear power industry?

A.3. The NRC has no rules, regulations, or-policy guidelines regarding control and prevention of drug use for holders of construction permits. Current NRC rules pertaining to drug abuse at operating nuclear power reactors include: (i) the physical and mental qualifications criteria for security personnel described in Appendix 8 to 10 C.F.R. Part 73 which prohibit ~ individuals with drug addiction from performing security duties, and (ii) the physical and mental qualifications criteria for licensed reactor operators described in 10 CFR 55.11, which require that there be no conditions that would impair judgement o motor coordination. This would

. obviously include drug abuse. Those criteria are also reflected in Regulatory Guide 1.134, Rev 1 1979, " Medical Evaluation of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses" and ANSI N546-1976, "American National Standard Medical Certification and Monitoring of Personnel Requiring Operator Licenses For Nuclear Power Plants."

The ANSI standard N546-1976 specifically identifies drug dependency as a disqualifying condition. It should be noted that similar criteria for independent spent fuel' storage facility operators exist in 10 C.F.R. 672.93. Also, criteria described in 10 C.F.R. 610.11(a)(10) and (11), which applies to licensees, contractors and NRC employees, would preclude a drug abuser from obtaining a security clearance. However, use of this provision by the nuclear power utilities is limited. Similar criteria in the proposed 10 C.F.R. 973.56 (SECY 83-311) " Proposed Insider Safeguards Rules" July 29, 1983, would preclude a drug abuser from having unescorted access to an operating power reactor. IE Circular 81-02, " Performance of i

NRC-Licensed Individuals While On Duty" February 9, 1981, which was reaffimed by IE Information Notice 85-53, "Perfomance of NRC-Licensed Individuals While On Duty" dated July 12, 1985, alerts licensees to the need to establish management controls and a-pro-fessional environment which would prohibit activities such as drug use. IE Information Notice 82-05, " Increasing Frequency of Drug-Related Incidents" dated March 10, 1982, reported an increasing frequency of drug related incidents and announced IE's initiation of actions to address the problem on a generic basis. NUREG/CR-3196,

" Drug and Alcohol Abuse: The Bases for Employee Assistance Programs

1

. In The Nuclear Utility Industry", issued in July 1983, describes the nature, prevalence, and trends of drug abuse and recommends programs that could minimize drug abuse in the nuclear industry. Criterion II of Appendix B to 10 C.F.R. 50 describes a need to assure suitable proficiency of personnel as part of the quality assurance program; while it does not specifically require a fitness for duty program, we would expect applicants to have programs to assure that drug abuse does not impair proficiency or otherwise negate the ,

effectiveness of the required quality assurance program. Other than the above, I am not aware of any specific rule, policy or standard that establishes an NRC position on drug abuse at nuclear power reactors, either under construction or operating.

The Commission has considered measures to provide rqasonable assurance that a person who is under the influence of drugs, or who is otherwise unfit for duty, is not allowed to constitute a threat to public health and safety at an operating nuclear power reactor.

Accordingly, on August 5, 1982, the Commission published a proposed 4

rule on fitness for duty (SECY 82-196). On August 15, 1983, final rulemaking was recommended in SECY 83-339 and approved by the Commission on July 5, 1984. On October 24, 1984, in response to the industry's proposal, the Commission directed the staff to withhold action on the rule and to prepare a policy statement which would defer NRC's rulemaking for two years to let the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INP0) evaluate industry performance in their implementation of fitness for duty programs. This policy statement

. (SECY 85-21) was provided to the Comission on January 17, 1985. On June 3,1985, the Executive Director for Operations requested that the Corsnission delay any further action pending discussions with the Nuclear Utility Management and Human Resources Comittee (NUMARC) and INP0. By letter dated July 3,1985, NUMARC informed the Comission that: (i) all 55 nuclear utilities have committed to have a basic fitness for duty program; (ii) the EEI agreed to review, revise, and reissue their guidelines; (iii) INP0'is strengthening its evaluation of utility implementation through development of new performance objectives and criteria for plant and corporate evaluations; and (iv) each utility will upgrade its program to meet the improved standards and criteria.

As a result of the discussions with NUMARC, INPO and EEI, the staff recomended on August 28, 1985 that the Comission approve the policy statement (SECY 85-218). The EEI published, in early August 1985, a revised guideline-for developing policies in this matter. At this point, it would appear that this industry-developed standard will be used voluntarily at both operating power reactors and those under construction. Note that.the guide is not intended to be mandatory or prescriptive.

Q.4. What are the key elements considered important in a comprehensive drug program recommended by the EEI Guide?

A.4. The EEI guide describes the key elements of a drug fitness for duty program, and is provided as a reference source and guide for electric utilities to use in the continued development of their

. programs. The guide is intended to set forth a basic framework upon which the utility would develop a comprehensive program tailored to their needs. The guide is not limited to nuclear facilities. The key program elements described in the guide are:

1. Written policy This is the most fundamental element. It ensures that everyone from the company president to the laborers clearly understand what is expected of them and what consequences may result from violation of company policy.

f

2. Top management support It is essential that the Chief Executive Officer and Senior Management involve themselves in the creation and implementation of the dr';g program and keep themselves informed as to the program's effectiveness on a continuing basis and to see that company policy is fully enforced.

3. Effective policy communication This element is to ensure that a'll persons understand and support the program and its implementation. This takes the form, in part, of classroom training, briefings, training programs, video tapes, posters, brochures, company newsletters, etc.

. 4. Behavioral observation training for supervisors The implementation of this element is necessary to enable t

supervisors to detect changes in employee behavior and to initiate appropriate corrective action.

5. Policy implementation training for supervisors It is necessary to train supervisors as to what procedures should be applied if an employee appears unfit for duty or appears to have drugs in his possession.

6. Union briefing It is important to establish a spirit of cooperation and enlist the interest and support of the union leadership in i preventing and detecting use of illegal drugs,

7. Contractor notification This element is designed to ensure that contractors abide by the rules and policies issued by the licensee.

8. Law enforcement liaison 4

9 This element ensures that proper notification and coordination is conducted with local law enforcement authorities.

9. Chemical testing of body fluids This element provides an objective means of identifying r

persons who use drugs and may_take the form of pre-employment screening, testing for cause, or random or periodic testing.

10. Errployee assistance programs Such a program would help. investigate a broad spectrum of problems that include drug abuse. Its purpose is to achieve early intervention and encourage both self-referral and referral and support by family and friends.

Q.5. Is the CP&L program consistent with the EEI Guide?

A.5. Yes. I have reviewed the " Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of CCNC Contention WB-3 (Drug Abuse During Construction)" and its supporting documents and have compared the elements of the drug policies

, in effect at the Shearon Harris site as described in those documents

with the elements described in the "EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty Policy Development." Based upon those documents and the EEI Guide, I have concluded:

.(a) All key program elements of the EEI policy guide are included in the Shearon Harris program. The Shearon Harris program exceeds the EEI Guide in that it includes the following specific practices which are not encompassed within the purview of the EEI Guide:

(1) Management goes further than providing guidance and being involved. CP&L has fully documented the delineated management responsibilities in documents such as its

" Company Drug and Alcohol Statement of Practice and Drug and Alcohol Interdepartmental Procedure."

(2) Employment screening practices include:

(a) Applicants for employment are informed of company drug abuse policies; (b) Background investigation conducted; and l such investigations are conducted to identify I 1

past actions that would be predictive of I future reliability and trustworthiness. 1 I

l

, (c) Professional evaluations including the " Minnesota Multiphasic -Personality Inventory" psychological test, may be required.

To evaluate objectively some of the major personality traits which influence' individual and interpersonal behavior.

To predict behavior.

(d) Unfavorable information will (or may) preclude employment.

(3) Announced or unannounced inspections, investigations, and 4 searches are conducted.

To respond to alleged or suspected drug abuse To determine if problems do exist (4) Undercover investigations and drug detector dogs are used.

To respond to alleged or suspected drug abuse To determine if problems do exist 1

9 (5) Empicyee-signed record of policy awareness is maintained.

To establish record of awareness to support disciplinary action when needed.

(6) Contractor (Daniel International Corporation) established own program and placed emphasis on quality assurance j staff.

To implement CP&L's policies and procedures.

(7) Recognition of the role that various security measures have in identifying and discouraging drug abuse by site employees.

To provide a deterrent, security measures include cooperation with law enforcement investigations, undercover investigations, patrols and other activities, observation and searches, and searches by narcotic detection '

i dogs.

(8) Laboratory urinalysis is described in greater detail:

(a) Drug classes described.

4 I

- -- e e- n =

• w. - -- qa- -

, l (b) Qualitative analysis conducted first, and when positive, followed by cuantitative analysis.

(9) Procedure established to permit confidential and anonymous

! reporting of known or suspected drug activity. Procedure also established to provide feedback to person making report.

To provide means of obtaining confidential intelligence information.

(10) Interviews of each employee who leaves employment at the site, and interviews of randomly selected employees.

To provide means of obtaining intelligence information.

(11) Establishment of central point of contact who is coordinator for all information concerning drug activities.

To effect coordinated planning in determining and taking appropriate actions, including that which may be necessary with respect. to the employee's previous work.

-, --. . - . . ,,n- ,e- . --

5 l l

j

(12) Use of expertise of numerous entities, including i consultants, i

To utilize the knowledge and experience of others to assure program is viable.

i

0.6. Mr. Bush what is your conclusion regarding the Shearon Harris Drug l program?

j A.6. The CP&L drug program as described for the Shearon Harris site exceeds the industry guidance as recommended by EEI. Based upon my review of the EEI Guide and my past professional experience, the documents I have reviewed describe and set forth an effective program.

1 1

i I

i i

- .- ,,.-w,---- ----.y. , , , .,,,c -,-e, , . . - n------s ,e,. ..., --- -,r,nn~w , , , ...nrw,.m - - , , . =