IR 05000327/1987067
| ML20147C511 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 11/23/1987 |
| From: | Bush L, Mcpeek E, Tobin W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20147C504 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-327-87-67, 50-328-87-67, NUDOCS 8801190255 | |
| Download: ML20147C511 (17) | |
Text
'
_
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION AND REGION II Report Nos:
50-327/87-67 and 50-328/87-67 Docket Nos:
50-327 and 50-328 License Nos:
Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN:
Mr. S. A. White, Manager of Nuclear Power 6N 38A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
'
Facility Name:
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant Inspection at:
Chattanooga, Tennessee Inspection Conducted:
October 5-9, 1987 j
i Type of Inspection:
Announced Special Inspection of Fitness for Outy Program j
/[87[4Pr'
Inspectors:
m
,
poren L. Bush, Jr., Chief, Pr'ogram Development Date and Review Section, Reactor Safeguards Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Safegua:Js, NRR l
M~( W'
/f
///
V Eugene W. McPeek, Security' Specialist Date i
Program Development and Review Section, RSGB Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards, NRR
,
O (
b.li' / 94P 7 Date William J. TobM, Physical Security Inspector Safeguards SectVon, Region II Observers:
Valerie E. Barnes, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Human Affairs Research Center, Battelle Memorial Institute Janet Hendrickson, Research Specialist, Human Affairs Rese Center, Battelle Memorial Institute
- - -
-
///h3/87 Approved By:
R/5ert A. Erickson, Chief Oate Reactor Safeguards Branch Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 8901190255 000107 PDN ADOCK 05000327 O
.
.-
.
I Inspection Summary Areas Inspected:
Included review of policies, procedures, and practices of the
,
Fitness for Duty (FFD) Program and the Employee Assistant Program (EAP)
applicable to Tennessee Valley Authority's Office of Nuclear Power (ONP)
employees and contractors; comparison of the FFD and EAP programs with the j
program elements recommended in the EEI Guide; and evaluation of supplemental program elements not specifically addressed in the EEI Guide.
Significant observations included:
1.
ONP's written policies differ from some of the features contained in the Commission's Policy Statement or recomended by the EEI Guide. Most of these differences provide management latitude in handling probicms on a
'
case by case basis.
2.
Chemical tests of body fluids are used for preemployment screening, for granting initial unescorted access, for cause, and for follow-up testing of ONP employees previously tested positive. Random testing of persons with unescorted access began on October 13, 1987.
Cut off limits are high and may not identify "casual" or occasional
'
a.
use of drugs.
b.
Only confirmed positive test results are provided ONP management.
i Therefore, an employee who has abused drugs may be pemitted to remain on the job after TVA has initial indications that drugs may have been used.
3.
ONP and contractor supervisors have been trained and appear to understand their FFD program responsibilities.
4.
ONP employees and contractors were aware of the policy, however, their concerns were not resolved during awareness briefings.
5.
No formal audit program has been developed, however, an audit of the FFD program has been performed by a contractor.
,
6.
Minimal statistical tata are kept, and there has been no systematic reporting or data analysis.
7.
The TVA EAP program appears to be effective.
l
-
.
.
-
.
.
A.
Key Persons Contacted S. A. White, Manager of Nuclear Power C. C. Mason, Deputy Manager, OPN L. M. Nobles, Plant Manager
- R. M. McLeroy, Personnel Officer
- G. Saloka, Site Personnel Officer
- E. R. Patrick, Office of General Counsel
- G. B. Kirk, i4anager, Compliance Licensing
- M. Belvin, Supervisor, Technical Systems Licensing
- L. Ginn, Nuclear Engineer (Licensing)
- D. P. Ormsby, Licensing Engineer W. Gillison, Chief, Nuclear Security Branch r
L. Kelley, Site Security Manager D. Conner, Chief Engineering & Technical Training Branch J. L. Laney, Site Training Supervisor
- E. Felker, Physician l
- S. Chardos, Chief Psychiatrist E. J. Lane, Area Chief Physician
- R. Morris, Medical Services C. Bailey, Program Coordinator R. Usher, Counselor V. Thal, Counselor Theinspectorsinterviewed10TVAOfficeofNuclearPower(0NP) supervisors, 18 ONP nonsupervisory employees, 3 contractor supervisors, and 17 contractor nonsupervisory employees on site, EAP counseling staff, and personnel at local law enforcement offices and at the TVA testing laboratory.
B.
Entrance and Exit Meetings The inspectors met with licensee representatives at ONP Headquarters on October 5, 1987 to sumarize the scope of the inspection. On October 9, 1987, the inspectors met with licensee representatives at ONP Headquarters, as indicated above by asterisk, to sumarize the observations made during the inspection.
C.
Approach
)
The inspection team compared the ONP Fitness for Duty Program to each of the key Program Elements recomended 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 ONP program was also compared to
,
miscellaneous features contained in the eel Guide.
In addition, the team l
'
reviewed the ONP progran for elements not specifically addressed in the EE1 Guide which could be used to supplement those recomended in the EEI Guide.
This included proactive measures to detect the presence of drugs on site.
The format of the report reflects this approach.
- Denotes those present at exit briefing.
- ~
t i
.
D.
Implementation of the EEI Guide Following are the inspectors' observations with respect to the implementation of each of the Key Program Elements recomended by the EEI Guide, j
1.
Written Policies TVA's written policies and procedures related to fitness for duty were promulgated by the Office of Nuclear Power (0NP) and are intended to be applicable to all ONP employees, individuals who have unescorted access clearance or who are stationed at TVA nuclear sites / projects, contractor /
vendor employees assigned to ONP or TVA's nuclear sites / projects, and others within TVA who, by the nature of their jobs, as determined by the Manager of Nuclear Power, could affect the safe operation of TVA's nuclear plants.
ONP's FFD policy, which is a brief suninary of the intent and features of the program, was issued in June 1986.
The current program is described in Revision 3 to the implementing procedure published August 26, 1987. This latter document was used to compare TVA's FFD program with the features characterized in the Commission's Policy Statement or reconinended by the EEI Guide. Some differences were noted, as follows:
Imediate revocation of access to the nuclear plant is not prescribed,
-
but is the practice.
,
i Discharge is not specified for the sale, use, or possession of illegal
-
drugs while on the job.
Furthermore, discharge is not specified for the illegal sale of narcotics, drugs, or controlled substances when
off duty and when off company premises.
As for the sale, use, or possession of illegal drugs while on company property, there is an inconsistency between paragraph 6.1.1 (violations are subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge) and paragraph 6.2.6c (violations will result in termination). TVA's Office of General Counsel reported that the reason discharge is not specified is that federal law requires disciplinary measures be determined on a case-by-case basis. ONP's practice is to discharge for violations of the above standards of conduct.
Handling of drug or alcohol use among employees in designated
-
positions is not described; ONP does not use designated positions.
l
Employees are not infonned:
-
e that law enforcement officials will be notified whenever illegal drugs are found. Employees are notified that illegal drugs will
'
be confiscated.
s that appropriate measures will be taken to determine the scope of illegal involvement with drugs, e.g., to identify source of the drugs and other employees who may be involved.
Furthermore, procedures do not prescribe determination of safety-significance, particularly with respect to review of prior work performed.
2.
Top Management Support The inspectors concluded that top management supports the FFD and EAP
.
l assigned, such as FFD Program Manager (gram oversight have not been programs, although some elements of pro the ONP Labor Relations Staff is responsible for program development and guidance) and program audits (a contractedaudithadbeenconducted). The inspectors also concluded, based upon interviews of supervisory and nonsupervisory ONP employees,
'
that mid-level management does not willingly support the policy. Several of the TVA and contractor supervisors interviewed reported ther had handled problems (or would) outside the policy.
Several of those interviewed comented as follows:
e The new policy is another example of a policy not thought through by management.
e The policy is written so that management can do what it wants.
e Employees do not trust management because they are out to get j
employees. A frequent contention was that management had
'
lowered cutoff levels for tests conducted as a result of an investigation in the Spring of 1987. The inspectors confirmed that the cutoff level set by the testing laboratory used by the TVA Inspector General for the drug being tested during that investigation was half the level used by ONP.
Many of those interviewed believed that management enforcement of the policies was not equitable and fair, and commented as follows:
o Some professions / trades believe they will be singled out for higher standards.
l
,
-
,
--y,
.
,
.
.
,
e Many believe that the policy should be applied equally -- and company wide, Many were of the opinion that management is throwing away their e
most valuable resources (the employees) and will not offer rehabilitation, o
Several cited the investigation conducted in the Spring of 1987 and that those identified as drug abusers ended up in better jobs (i.e., less stress and responsibility with no loss in pay).
3.
Effective Policy Communication The inspectors interviewed numerous ONP and contractor employees and detennined that most interviewed had received awareness training through the General Employees Training Program (GET).
The GET program is provided to all personnel with unescorted access. The GET includes approximately 30 minutes of training on FFD; each attending employee receives a copy of the written FFD policy and a handout on the effects of drug abuse. Several interviewed could not recall or
,
define the training received.
Knowledge of the EAP was very limited.
ONP initiated a communications campaign to assure employee awareness of the recently revised FFD policy, which included random testing.
Articles appeared in newsletters and the Manager of Nuclear Power addressed a memorandum to all affected employees. A video tape was made and used during mandatory 30 minute briefings on the new policy.
'
All employees and contractors were required to attend and attendance records were maintained. Unfortunately, employee concerns that were related during interviews and witnessed by the inspectors during a briefing session, are not resolved. The concerns which relate to quality controls and accuracy of the tests, allegatior.s, and self-referrals into the EAP, are sumarized in paragraph D.9.f, below.
All present ONP employees and employees of contractors and vendors are required to receive FFD awareness training, separate from GET, under the April 1987 revision to the training program.
That training will be completed by April 1988. Thereafter, refresher training on the FFD program will be provided every two years, in addition to the annual GET training.
J Beh vieral Observation Training For Supervisors 4.
e3 ONP management reported that they were responsible for training both ONP and contractor supervisors. A training effort was initiated in August 1985 and by February 1987 approximately 1,600 managers and supervisors had been trained.
-. _ _
_.
_
_
__
_
The training was offered at three different locations and consisted of two hours of formal instructions following the Draft EEI Guide.
An EAP counselor was present at each session and a video tape from medical services was shown. All 0NP and contractor supervisors interviewed had been trained, were knowledgeable of the program, and understood their responsibilities.
A refresher training program was developed in March 1987. However, in May of 1987 the program was suspended pending resolution of union objections to the random testing. There has been no refresher training conducted for supervisors.
The revised Supervisory Training Program, which includes training en random testing, is scheduled to be completed within 12 months of the April 27, 1957 revision to the training modules. The program will provide-for behavioral observation training and policy implementation guidelines, which include handling, reporting, and documenting the misuse of drugs and alcohol. Within six months of initial appointment, all new supervisors are required to complete this training.
5.
Policy Implementation Training For Supervisors See Paragraph D 4 above.
I 6.
Union Briefing During the Summer of 1985, ONP met with the Tennessee Valley Trades and Labor Council, and the Salary Policy Employee Panel which represent the 20 plus unions that TVA deals with. This was to provide information and 30 days notice that ONP would begin a drug and alcohol testing program
'
for new employees and for those who transfer into the ONP.
On April 7, 1987, ONP met with the Tennessee Valley Trades and Labor Council and on April 29, 1987, the Salary Policy Employee Panel to provide infornation and 30 days notice that ONP would begin random drug testing. As a result of these meetings, a list of questions were presented to TVA by the unions. TVA subsequently met with the Council and Panel and provided answers to their questions.
Prior to implementation of the new random drug testing policy, an investi-gation, initiated on April 17, 1987 by the TVA's Inspector General (IG),
j led to the testing of various ONP individuals. As a result of this testing,
,
some 20+ employees of TVA and the Public Safety and Security Employees Union filed a law suit in the U.S. District Court against various TVA employees involved in the investigation and the related drug testing. The plaintiffs sought damages for alleged violations of their constitutional rights as a consequence of drug testing carried out in April 1987, and resulting disciplinary action which was taken.
(The union did not seek such
.
damages.) All plaintiffs, including the union, requested injunctive relief against further drug testing. On August 11, 1987, the District Court ordered that the plaintiffs be denied any monetary or injunctive relief, and that the actions be dismissed.
Four TVA employees, one of whom was part of the law suit, have filed a grievance. They are asking that they be made whole for all losses suffered during the investigation, restoration of any leave used, and placement into their prior position in ONP. The grievance is scheduled for arbitration on December 3-4, 1987.
l On August 26, 1987, the TVA Board of Directors approved revisions to the ONP Fitness for Duty Procedure, effective October 1,1987, which
provided among other things, for random drug and alcohol tests.
7.
Contractor Notification
There is standard language inserted into every contract for work performed at a TVA facility infoming the contractor that it must comply with the ONP FFD requirements.
If contractors have their own FFD program they must submit copies of it as part of their proposal. The ONP Medical Department reviews these submittals.
'
8.
Law Enforcement Liaison An interview was conducted with a representative of the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, who noted that a close working relationship exists between the Sheriff's Department and the licensee's security department.
The Sheriff does assist TVA in detemining sources of drugs and identifying co-workers who may be involved. The Sheriff has also conducted field tests of drugs for TVA and has forwarded drugs to be used as forensic evidence in court to the State Laboratory for chemical analysis.
9.
Chemical Testing of Body Fluids Chemical tests of body fluids have been used at TVA since 1985 for pre-employment screening, initial unescorted access screening, for cause testing,
.
and for EAP followup. Random testing began on October 13, 1987.
Drug testing is based on urinalysis, while alcohol testing relies on breathalyzer and blood tests.
Confirmstory tests are conducted, under contract, on all presumptive positive samples by the National Psychopharmacology Laboratory, Inc. (NPL).
Many TVA nuclear employees have not been tested because they were hired before the testing program began and were "grandfathered." However, a substantial number of Sequoyah Nuclear employecs volunteered for testing following the IG investigation of April 1987.
Furthermore, the newly
)
implemented random testing prcgram should eventually result in a test of i
all employees. TVA estimates that a number equal to 100 percent of the j
population subject to testing will be randomly tested over a two year period.
i l
i
'
-
l
.
A number equal to approximately 4 percent of the population will be tested each month, under the new FFD program.
Procedures differ for each type of test conducted (See "Collection of the Sample"). Corporate and plant level written procedures describe the testing policy and program.
a.
Who Is Tested (1) Preemployment testing applies to all new hires and transfers within TVA to ONP.
Contractor or vendor employees are routinely tested at time of assignment; except for emergency situations, the test results must be received prior to unescorted access being provided.
(2) For cause testing applies to any individual employee, members of a work unit, vendors, or contractors who are reasonably suspected of using or possessing illegal drugs, misusing alcohol or of having engaged in illegal drug activities.
(3) Random testing applies to persons with unescorted nuclear
.
plant access, TVA employees and vendor / contractor personnel
'
stationed at a nuclear site, management and engineering employees, and any other individuals identified by the Manager of Nuclear Power.
j (4) Unannounced testing applies to employees involved in EAP
-
follow-up, as determined by the employee's EAP counselor.
Accident-related testing was recomended by a consultant, but has not been implemented, b.
Collection of the Sample Preemployv.ent collection is conducted at the headquarters medical facility in Chattanooga.
All other types are conducted l
at the nuclear site by a medical technician. The medical staff directly observes the collection of samples related to for cause tests or when the initial sample is suspect. The integrity of the sample for other types of testing is sought by using a specially-designed collection site.
However, as a senior member of the medical staff pointed out, any sophisticated drug user l
l will be able to circumvent these attempts to assure sample integrity. Medical technicians have not been and will not be trained under the new FFD program in methods to prevent introduction of surrogate samples; they will be familiar with those described as reasonable precautions in recently published Department of Health and Human Services "Proposed Scientific and
_
_
!
'
,
.
i
,
.
,
Technical Guidelines for Federal Drug Testing Programs" (52 FR l
30638) hereinafter referred to as the proposed HHS guidelines, c.
Control and Transfer of the Sample
Chain of custody procedures for the samples will change as the new FFD program is implemented to meet the proposed HHS guidelines. Under
!
both the old and new procedures, the samples are sealed with evidence tape in the presence of the individual tested, initialed, and various l
foms are completed to describe and verify that the sample belongs to the empicyee. Under the new procedure, the sample will then be placed
in a locked refrigerator and transferred to a cardboard box with a metal l
strap and seal at the end of the day.
Similarly complex procedures to
prevent tampering and to avoid confusing samples are followed at the TVA l
Headquarters laborabory and when transferring the presumptive positives i
to NPL in Knoxville by courier.
!
J An apparent weak link in the chain of custody occurs during transport
of the samples from the Sequoyah site (SQN) to headquarters in l
Chattanooga. The box containing the samples is hand-carried to the plant mail room, where it may be left unattended, or transferred to a
wooden shed near the site boundary guard station before it is picked i
up by a TVA courier. No hand receipts are used to ensure traceability.
SQN employees voiced concerns over the chain of custody procedures in j
interviews and during an FFD orientation session despite their general i
support for a random testing program.
j Samples testing negative are disposed of immediately. The positive j
samples are frozen and retained under control by the contract lab
.
(NPL) for one year.
d.
Testing of the Sample The TVA headquarters' laboratory will conduct all drug screens by enzyme multiplied imunoassay tests (EMIT), with the exception of for cause tests.
For cause test samples are sent directly to NPL.
For cause tests for alcohol are by blood; the sample is also sent directly to NPL.
At least four urine samples per day are sent to NPL in Knoxville.
Each presumptive positive is accompanied by a known negative.
If four presumptive positives are not available, then known negatives are sent, as a quality assurance technique.
Tests conducted at NPL have consisted of initial screens by thin-layer chromatography (TLC),andEMIT.
Radioimunoassay (RIA) testing was used for initial screening for marijuana.
Under the new program, only EMIT will be used for screening. All final confirmations will be made with gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC/MS).
The test results will be compared by a TVA physician to the individual's
~
.
.
.
prescriptions and use of over-the-counter (0TC) drugs documented in is acceptable (negative) physician will detennine if the test result the medical files. The
,
or unacceptable (positive).
,
'
Cutoff limits for screening tests used by the TVA and contract laboratories are the same and are based on the proposed HHS guidelines.
The cutoff limits would probably detect heavy users who
,
are addicted, however, they may not detect "casual" or occasional use. Cutoff values for the GC/MS confirmatory technique also are based on the HHS guidelines. The alcohol cutoff limit is.05 for both the breathalyzer and blood tests.
Under the current version of the FFD program, tests will not be
'
conducted for either barbiturates or hallucinogens. A senior TVA physician stated that tests for hallucinogens are too complex and expensive to be reasonably included in the FFD program, and are not covered by the HHS guidelines.
(NOTE: the HHS guidelines specify
-
testing for five drugs or classes of drugs, but provide some flexibility through submission to the Secretary HHS of the test methods and levels proposed for other drugs.) The decision to exclude barbiturates was based on several factors, including information from LLEAs that barbiturates are not comonly abused
,
within that area, the fact that barbiturates are used in many OTC and perscription drugs, and difficulties TVA has experienced in
,
obtaining information from employees' personal physicians about
'
their treatment activities because of confidentiality concerns.
e.
Reporting Results The TVA headquarters laboratory reports presumptive positives by sending a TVA form to the Area Chief Physician indicating that additional analyses are required. No telephone reports are made, and since information is not provided to management, no action is taken
.
in response to this information. One or two days after the sample is sent to NPL the results of the confirmation tests are received by TVA headquarters via teletype. The results are indicated on another copy i
of the TVA form mentioned above and sent to the Area Chief Physician who makes the final determination of the sample's status. Management and security are then informed by telephone of positive results. The practice is to then suspend the employee pending a decision by the Manager of Nuclear Power. An employee who has abused drugs may be permitted to remain on the job for several days after TVA has initial indications that drugs may have been used.
HHS guidelines suggest that positive test results be reviewed by a Medical Review Officer prior to the transmission of results to agency administrative officials.
'
i f.
Statistics on Drug Testing Since TVA began the preemployment and for cause testing program in August of 1985, the percentage of positive test results in ONP has
l
--
,
.
.
.
decreased from 8.5 percent to approximately 1.0 percent. TVA has conducted 14,235 preemployment tests between August 1985 and July 1987, with 307 positives (2.15 percent).
Subsequent to the inspection visit, ONP reported that 408 random tests had been conducted between October 13 and 30, 1987 with 4 positives.
g.
Employee Coments on Chemical Testing During interviews, some comments were made concerning the testing program:
e Although most recognized that random testing is an effective deterrent (several reported that quite a few employees had recently stopped using drugs for fear of getting caught by random testing), many perceived the revised program as a
"threat."
e Several suggested that the random sample be larger.
e Several said all collections should be directly observed, e
A few said the focus of the program is too much on drugs and not enough on alcohol, e
Many expressed concern about measures to protect the validity of the results, particularly quality controls and the accuracy of the tests.
Frequently, expressed concerns were that testing controls were not sufficiently strict and that samples could be mixed. Many also expressed concern that there was a lack of reliability in the tests.
Several believed that the testing program should include split samples and independent testing (i.e., simultaneous with TVA testing).
Further, many expressed concern that there is no mechanism to defend themselves from errors or false positives, i.e., no retest of the cample (or split sample), nor an "appeal process" for retesting.
e Several expressed concern that anonymous calls and tips will lead to a lot of harrassment and place their jobs in jeopardy (they were not aware of management's practice of detemining the validity of allegations before testing).
e Some expressed concern that even if an employee successfully completed the EAP rehabilitation program they would not get l
their job back, even if participation was through self referral.
It should be noted that even employees who had completed the half
'
hour awareness training for the revised policy expressed the above concerns.
I
l
- - - - - -
--
.
.
.
.
.
10.
Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
TVA introduced an alcohol and drug program for its employees in 1973, and continued to provide related services until 1982. At that time, an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) was established to provide a full menu of services to employees and their dependents.
Current staffing includes a supervisor, located at ONP Corporate Office, and seven counselors - three of whom are located at the nuclear sites.
Each counselor is a state certified drug and alcohol abuse counselor, and is therefore qualified to provide evaluation and assessment services in-house.
The counselors each carry a caseload of up to 30 participants at any given time.
Participants requiring extensive drug or alcohol treatment are placed by EAP counselors in outside treatment facilities. The follow-up program consists of two, three, and six-month contacts, and includes appropriate laboratory testing. A one-year follow-up program is being considered.
Counseling staff report that employees assessed as not fit for duty, and who must therefore, seek treatment, are asked to sign a confidentiality release so that the EAP can contact the employee's supervisor. A 100 per-cent compliance with this request is reported.
It was not clearly estab-lished how employees make the transition back to work, although it can be assumed that, in cases where an employee has given pennission, the supervisor is made aware of the treatment schedule and the planned date for return to work. The practice for dealing with employees who relapse was not deter-mined, however, the new policy (effective October 1, 1987) states that an ONP employee testing positive for drugs or alcohol within three years of a prior positive test will be terminated.
a.
Employee Awareness of EAP New employees are introduced to EAP services during initial orienta-tion; dependents do not receive any direct information. Employees receive an annual refresher awareness of the EAP during GET training.
Through employee interviews, it was ascertained that the EAP histori-cally has been poorly publicized.
Since the IG incident of April 1987, the EAP has received more publicity, however, it has been negative in nature. Those employees and supervisors interviewed do not perceive EAP participation as being confidential, and are in agreement that any acknowledgement of a drug or alcohol related problem would have a negative impact on their current job and future employability. They consider this a critical issue in light of TVA's policy change, effective October 1, 1987.
EAP staff report that the new policy will require counselors who receive information that would indicate possible job impairment from an employee permitted unescorted access to imediately report it to Medical Services, who must contact ONP Security. ONP Security then pulls the i
employee's 5-1 clearance pending further investigation.
Interviewed employees view this as an disincentive for employees to seek rehabilitation through self-referral irito the EAP.
.
j
-
,
'
b.
Utilization Rates Actual utilization rates reported represent approximately 2 )ercent of the ONP workforce. During FY 86, 224 cases were opened;
- Y 87 data were not yet available, however, one counselor reported that the number of cases opened had risen to 617. The breakdown between employee and dependent cases was not provided. The EAP reports that approximately 75 percent of all cases are either self-referrals or i
from Medical Services; only 14 percent are through supervisors (the
'
remaining 11 percent fall into the "other" category). Supervisors are instructed not to refer suspected alcohol and drug cases directly
'
to the EAP, but rather to Medical Services.
A physician, not specifically trained in chemical dependence evaluation, makes the initial diagnosis, and then the referral. The number of successful cases is relatively high, approximately 87 percent.
.
c.
Training
'
The low referral rate by Supervisors is directly attributable to the limited EAP services training that supervisors receive.
In addition to their assessment, referral and placement, and counseling responsi-bilities, EAP counselors have been required to provide new supervisors and managers with the EAP portion of the fitness for duty training.
Over 3,000 managers and supervisors received this training in FY87.
Each counselor is also responsible for informal training with his/her site suparvisors to encourage referrals. Any mention of an ongoing awareness campaign was not made.
EAP staff identified a few years ago, and continue to perceive, a strong need for concentrated employee training and training personnel.
E.
Miscellaneous eel Guide Features Following are the inspector's observations with respect to miscellaneous features of the eel Guide.
1.
Substance Abuse Comittee A substance abuse Comittee has not been established, nor do key people fulfill comittee functions on an ad hoc basis. Although ONP's Labor Relations Staff has been assigned responsibility for developing the FFD program and providing overall administrative guidance, a FFD Program Manager has not been formally designated.
2.
Periodic Audits An audit of the FFD program has been performed by a contractor. Respon-sibility for planning and developing a continuing audit program has not been assigned.
Contractor implementation of the FFD program is examined during the audit of the access authorization program.
These examinations
_ _-
_
.
.
.
are limited to a records review to determine if a person had been tested for alcohol and drugs and that the results were negative.
3.
Records and Reports Minimal program records are maintained, and except for occasional reports to immediate management, there has been no systematic reporting or data analysis. At the exit briefing, ONP staff reported that such a system had just been established.
F.
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 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 also reviewed selected areas not included in the guidance.
It is emphasized that the following description of areas reviewed is not an indication that such program elements are or may become requirements.
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 mishandled.
Broad guidelines covering most appropriate situations are described in ONP 0905.01.04 and Sequoyah Standard Practice SQA 80.3.13, 2.
Professional Counseling Services Professional counseling services are intended to manage and carry out the EAP program, and provide initial 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 instability.
Professional counseling services are available from TVA's medical staff on-site and in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
3.
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 rehabilitation.
The practices would include background investigation, psychological tests, interviews and periodic rescreening.
l O
.
.
With minor exceptions, preemployment screening practices appear to be consistent with the proposed industry guidelines for an access authorization program.
Preemployment screening is conducted by each
)
contractor in accordance with the TVA "Personnel Security Screening j
'
Requirements for Access."
4.
Legal Reviews Legal reviews would assure that company policies and procedures, contracts, and union agreements meet constitutional and legal requirements with respect to fitness for duty.
Attorneys were involved in the development of the program and have reviewed it to ensure legal sufficiency.
Legal representatives have reviewed the standard language inserted into all contracts relating to Fitness for Duty commitments.
5.
Proactive Measures To Detect The Presence of Drugs On-Site These measures are intended to provide evidence of on-site drug problems before they would be manifested in observable aberrant behavior. These measures could also provide a deterrent to on-site drug abuse.
a.
Chemical Testing of Body Fluids Chemical testing of body fluids is a powerful tool for the detection and prevention of drug abuse, ONP's proposed random drug and alcohol testing programs could provide a deterrent to drug abuse.
See paragraph D.9 for a detailed discussion of ONP's chemical testing program.
b.
Searches Searches can be an effective means of discovering any alcohol or other drugs that may have been introduced into the workplace.
Searches can be an effective deterrent.
On-site drug dogs are used to conduct searches of controlled areas whenever there is suspicion or evidence of drug use and for random searches of the workplace to include the parking lot.
c.
Investigations 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 problem.
Short-term investigations are conducted by security personnel with long-term investigations handled by the TVA's Inspector General. The Sheriff's office can be called in to provide l
expert assistance as necessary.
d.
Mechanism For Discreet Expression of Cancerns A mechanism for discreet expressions of concern can facilitate unrestricted flow of information from those who, for many l
reasons, may be reluctant to provide important information to management.
,
I TVA has hotlines available to TVA employees and contractors for reporting any concerns, including FFD, as part of the Employee Concern Program at each site. An interview with the SQN Employee Concern Program Director indicated that his program had I
I not been used by anyone to report concerns about other l
employees' fitness for duty or illegal drug a tivities.
Interviews indicated that the availability of the hot lines for
'
reporting FFD concerns is not widely known.
Some employees
'
interviewed indicated that they would report such concerns to their supervisor, while others indicated they would use the
'
Employee Concern Program.
e.
Information from Law Enforcement Authorities Law enforcement authorities may rovide useful information
'
concerning drug activity in the ocal community, especially employee involvement.
Law enforcement authorities provide information within legal bounds concerning off-site drug activity that may ultimately affect performance on the job.
(See paragraph F.5.c.)
!
i l
,
l