ML20198A643
| ML20198A643 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1986 |
| From: | Bush L, Mckee P, Rosano R, Tobin W NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II), NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198A635 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-54FR24468, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-26 50-250-86-23, 50-251-86-23, AC81-2-091, AC81-2-91, NUDOCS 8605210165 | |
| Download: ML20198A643 (12) | |
See also: IR 05000250/1986023
Text
.
.
.
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
OFFICE OF INSPECTION AND ENFORCEMENT
AND REGION II
Report No.: 50-250/86-23 and 50-251/86-23
Docket No.: 50-250 and 50-251
License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41
Licensee:
Florida Power and Light Company
ATTN: Mr. C. O. Woody
Group Vice President
Nuclear Energy Department
Post Office Box 14000
Juno Beach, Florida 33408
_
Facility Name: Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station
Inspection at:
Homestead and Miami, Florida
Inspection conducted:
April 1-4, 1986
,
.
~
Type of Inspection: Announced Special Inspection of Fitness for Duty Program
-
Inspectors:
-" -
YMNb"6
Qoren L. Bush, Jr4TTenior~ Security Specialist
Date
-
Division of Inspection Programs, IE
-
-Y
y t
Richard P. Rosano, Security Specialist
Date
Division of Inspection Programs, IE
O#
N
W
~&
r/sww
kPgTlliamJ.Tobin,WFniorSecurityInspector
Date
Region II
Approved by:
/
'1/L4 /8(e
Phillip F. FA:Kee, Chief
Date
Reactor Programs Branch, IE
i
8605210165 860514
DR
ADOCK 05000250
-1-
__
_
.
.
.
Inspection Summary
Areas Inspected:
Included review of policies, procedures, and practices of the
Fitness for Duty (FFD) Program and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
applicable to FPL employees and contractors; comparison of the FFD and EAP
programs with those recomrrended in the EEI Guide; evaluation of program
elements that go beyond the EEI Guide; and evaluation of FPL's ability to
detect the presence of drugs onsite.
Significant inspection findings included:
1.
The written policy does not incorporate all of the important features
described in the EEI Guide, i.e., many policies and practices are
unwritten, offsite and off-duty situations are not covered, and
alcohol abuse is not addressed. Written policy only covers
-
onsite/on-duty drug involvement.
2.
Supervisory training and awareness appears adequate.
3.
Employee awareness of the fitness for duty program needs improvement.
4.
Chemical testing of body fluids is used for pre-employment and for ,
cause; random or periodic testing are not conducted.
0,
5.
There are no follow-up features in the Employee Assistance Program to
determine if there should be restrictions on safety-related duties
and to verify continued rehabilitation.
6.
There are no proactive measures that would provide evidence of onsite
-
drug problems before they would be manifested in observable aberrant
behavior, i.e., no random or periodic chemical tests of body fluids,
no searches of the workplace, no mechanism for employees to
discreetly express concerns, and investigations are only reactive.
7.
EAP program statistical data are very limited, and neither EAP nor
FFD data have been analyzed.
'
.
e
-2-
.
.
,
A.
Key Persons Contacted
J. W. Dickey, Vice-President, Nuclear Operations
J. J. Baur, Vice-President, Personnel
C. M. Wethy, Site Vice-President, Turkey Point
C. J. Baker, Nuclear Plant Manager, Turkey Point
K. L. Caldwell, Manager of Corporate Security Services
R. E. Garrett, Security Supervisor, Turkey Point
R. E. Habegger, Nuclear Energy Personnel Coordinator
L. W. Murray, Personnel Coordinator
V. A. Howe, Personnel Coordinator
K. Wisniewski, Senior Quality Assurance Engineer
R. Conway, Manager, Corporate Contracts
R. Bumgarner, IBEW Shop Steward
R. J. Cartrette, Senior Site Representative, Stone and Webster
R. Slover, Project Superintendent, Bechtel
T. Peebles, NRC Resident Inspector
_
Several other supervisory and non-supervisory personnel were interviewed.
B.
Exit Interviews
The inspectors met with the licensee representatives, as indicated above,
onsite on April 3,1986 and at Corporate HQ on April 4,1986 to summarize
.
the inspection findings.
C.
Approach
The inspection team compared the FPL Fitness for Duty Program to each of
the Key Program Elements reconnended by the "fCI Guide to Effective Drug
and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty Policy Development," revised August 1985
~
(hereinafter referred to as the EEI Guide). The FPL program was also
compared to miscellaneous features contained in the EEI Guide.
In
'
addition, the team also examined the FPL program for elements that would
supplement those recommended in the EEI Guide, particularly those that
would be included in proactive measures to detect the presence of drugs
onsite. The report is formatted to reflect this approach.
D.
Implementation of EEI Guide
Following are the inspectors' findings with respect to the implementation
of each of the Key Program Elements recommended by the EEI Guide.
1.
Written Policy
FPL written policy does not include all of the important features
described in the EEI Guide.
It does address onsite/on-duty drug
involvement, but does not make clear definitive statements on alcohol
abuse, offsite/off-duty situations, nor the special handling of
,
Denotes those present at the exit interview at Corporate Headquarters.
Denotes those present at the onsite preliminary exit interview.
Denotes those present at both exit interviews.
l
l
-1-
I
.
. - -
..
=
._
. - - _ - -
_.-
-
-
..
-
,
,
i
-
.
\\
-
i
1
employees with safety-related duties in designated positions. This
-
special handling would consist of determination if duty restrictions
are appropriate, return to the position only when satisfactory
professional assurances are received, and measures to verify
continued rehabilitation.
FPL was reluctant to state, as recommended
by the EEI Guide, that "whenever possible, the company will assist
employees in overcoming drugs, alcohol, and other problems . . . ".
The inspectors noted that many policies and practices are unwritten.
For example, although the policy is silent on alcohol abuse, actions
have been taken for employees whose abuse of alcohol affected job
performance. Furthermore, FPL staff stated that as a matter of
'
practice an employee charged with offsite use, possession, or sale of
drugs would be suspended (when FPL learned of the charges), and if
the employee were conv!cted, FPL would consider termination, as has
been done in the past.
_.
2.
Top Management Support
Based upon employee interviews and reviews of the disposition of
reported cases (see Paragraph D.4, below) the inspectors concluded
!
that management has been fair and impartial in enforcing FPL policy,
and has tended to support rehabilitation and reassignment as a means
of retaining employees. Although management has supported the
policy, it appears that their demonstrated support, particularly
.
~
efforts to communicate the policy, could be improved (see next
paragraph) . The problem with demonstrated support is compounded by
the fact that program managers are assigned at the Corporate level
only, and no one onsite has clear responsibility for managing and
communicating the program.
3.
Effective Policy Communication
f
FPL reported that all-employees were provided an initial program
l
briefing and booklet in late 1984, and that fitness for duty is
occasionally discussed during monthly safety meetings which are open
'
,
l
to all cmployees. Occasional articles have appeared in the company
newsletter.
New employees have received the same information as part
!
!
of their orientation.
The inspectors interviewed several licensee employees and a few
l
!
contractors, and determined they were aware of the Fitness for Duty
Program (FFD) and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP).
Employees
are instructed to contact their supervisor for expressing concerns
about a fellow worker or during the onset, of personal problems;
however, they appeared to lack knowledge of possible alternatives if
they were reluctant to contact their supervisor, as several of those
interviewed stated they were (also see Paragraph F.5.d below).
Communication problems were also evidenced by the fact 'that many of
the employees interviewed seemed to believe that the
$100 provided
by FPL for initial consultation fees was all that would be provided
for long-term treatment of alcohol or drug abuse, when in fact
insurance would cover such expenses. Also, many of those interviewed
-2-
. -
.- -
.-
.- -
- --
. - - .
.-- .
.
.
.
.
P
seemed unaware of how the EAP program worked, and were not aware that
their families could participate in the EAP or of the contribution
the family could make through the EAP to the employee's health.
Due
to limitations on time, findings concerning contractor employees are
inconclusive.
FPL staff has recommended implementation of an
information campaign for all employees, to include meetings and
development of a booklet and information package.
4.
Behavioral Observation Training for Supervisors
It appears that FPL has placed heavy reliance for success of the
program on behavioral observation, particularly on the ability of
supervisors to detect indications of degradation of job performance.
All personnel who have been in supervisory positions for 6 months or
more have been trained. Some assigned for shorter periods have not
--
yet been trained, as permitted by FPL policy. To demonstrate the
effectiveness of this training, the inspectors were provided data
'
which indicate that 13 cases have been reported by FPL supervisors at
both Turkey Point (which includes one case at the fossil fuel units)
and St. Lucie since the inception of the FFD program in the fall of
1984.
The unsegregated data showed that 8 cases of aberrant behavior
(2 of which were caused by drug abuse) and 5 cases of alcohol abuse .
were reported. To supplement supervisory observation of behavior,
,
FPL has trained reactor operators (SR0s and R0s), all members of the
-
security organization, and the fossil plant supervisors in behavioral
observation. Based upon a brief review of the documented training
program, limited interviews, and the supervisory observations
reported above, it appears that training in this area for FPL
supervisors is adequate.
Based upon limited interviews, it appears
-
that training for contractor supervisors is adequate.
5.
Policy Implementation Training for Supervisors
Supervisors have been trained in FPL policies regarding FFD within
6 months of their appointment in accordance with FPL policy. Several
supervisors appointed less than 6 months ago have not been trained as
yet.
Based upon a brief review of the documented training program
and limited interviews, it appears that training in the
implementation of FPL's policies and procedures is adequate.
However, it should be emphasized that the written policies and
procedures, upon which the training is based, are deficient ( see
Paragraph D.1, above).
6.
Union Briefing
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) bargaining
unit representing FPL employees was informed of the policies, was
consulted during the development of the Employees Assistance Program
and provided input to the drug policy.
The bargaining unit appears
to accept and support the program, even though the signed agreement
between FPL and IBEW is silent on this point.
FPL staff stated that
although the IBEW bargaining unit representing the construction
crafts objects to the programs primarily as an invasion of privacy,
-3-
'
.
.
I
the IBEW International does not object primarily because fitness for
duty is considered a disciplinary matter which is the prerogative of
the employer.
7.
Contractor Notification
Contractors are given the option of using the FPL fitness for duty
program or implementing their own, provided it is acceptable to FPL.
A consortium of small contractors called Atlantic Group, and 4 other
contractors have their own fitness for duty program.
Bechtel and
Stone and Webster have adopted the FPL Fitness for Duty program and
have their own EAP programs, although Bechtel's Employee Assistance
Services program is not provided to their nonsalaried employees, such
as trade craftsmen. Wackenhut has also adopted the FPL Fitness for
Duty program, but has no EAP program. Therefore, Wackenhut employees
and certain Bechtel employees are not provided the EAP element of the
EEI Guide.
-
Licensees have the option of " devitalizing" vital areas during cold
shutdown or refuleing operations to reduce the access screening
burden. This technique could also be used to eliminate the need for
a fitness for duty program during these periods. The instructors
,
noted that FPL requirements regarding fitness for duty of contractors
(and FPL employees) would not change during these periods.
.
,
8.
Law Enforcement Liaison
Due to limitations on time, the inspectors did r.ot contact the local
law enforcement authorities. Based on statements made by FPL staff
in conjunction with information obtained by Region II inspectors
-
during previous security inspections, it would appear that the liaison
is governed by the Dade County Metro Police Department interest in
drugs which is essentially limited to significant amounts.
9.
Chemical Testing of Body Fluids
Chemical testing of body fluids has been used for preemployment
-
screening since October 1983 and is used for cause; random or
periodic chemical tests are not conducted. Therefore, most employees
have not been chemically tested and have been de facto " grandfathered."
The FPL staff has recomended that urinalysis be conducted for
investigations of accidents where operator error is suspected.
Samples are sent to the SmithKline Chemical Laboratories for analysis.
Documents provided the inspectors indicate that the examining
physician is responsible for ensuring that valid samples are
collected, that the samples are accurately labeled, and measures are
taken to prevent contamination of the sample. These documents also
indicate that SmithKline also provides a courier service to transport
the specimens from the physician to the laboratory, that the chain of
-4-
-
.
._
._
_
.
.
.
,
custody is documented, that laboratory standards and procedures exist
that minimize the possibility of error, that confirmation of all
ositives is made by a different chemical process, and that another
p(reference) laboratory confirms positive findings.
Due to
limitations on time, the inspectors did not verify through
observation and interview that the above are properly executed.
Also, the inspectors did not determine how promptly tests for cause
had been conducted after the condition had been noted.
10.
Employee Assistance Programs
The EAP is intended to provide all employees and their families with
confidential professional assistance in resolving personal problems.
The program is not well publicized; the employees interviewed,
although aware of the existence of the program, seemed unaware of how
__
the program works, how they and their families could participate, and
how they would benefit (see Paragraph D.3, above).
Based upon the inspectors' understanding of the FFD and EAP program
records (see Paragraphs D.4, above, and E.1, below), it appears that
since the fall of 1984 only one employee has self-enrolled in the EAP
program - just before being confronted by his supervisor. Therefore,
early intervention through self or family referral, a key
~.
characteristic of EAP programs, appears deficient, and may be due to
lack of employee and family awareness of the EAP program.
Because of how the EAP program is organized and administered,
including its confidentiality, FPL has no knowledge of the nature of
the employee's problem, whether the problem has been solved, what may
_
be needed to verify continued rehabilitation, whether there should be
restrictions on safety-related duties, and whether past safety-related
work needs to be double checked.
Since there is no feedback built into the EAP program, FPL staff
could not determine if the program was effective. However, a FPL
staff " Fitness for Duty" Task Team recently completed an evaluation
of the existing FPL policies compared to the EEI Guide, and programs
at other utilities. They concluded that the EAP program " lacks the
leadership, direction, and resources needed to be a highly effective
program." The Task Team recommended that an EAP professional be
hired to evaluate the present program, make recommendations to
upgrade the program, and then implement and administer the program.
The Task Team anticipates that better management and marketing of the
program will increase its utilization.
FPL management is considering
'
these staff recommendations.
E.
Miscellaneous EEI Guide Features
Following are the inspectors' findings with respect to miscellaneous
features of the EEI Guide.
-5-
. - _ -
. _ .
.
-
..
,
I
'
,
1.
System of Records and Reports
Although data has been collected on experiences with the Fitness for
Duty Program, the data have not been analyzed to enhance management
. awareness of the program and its successes, and to determine where
t
i'
attention is warranted.
FPL does not collect data on contractor
administration of the program nor do they ensure that the contractors
coordinate their programs; i.e., a person terminated for drug abuse
'by one contractor could be hired for work onsite by another
contractor. Due to the way that the Employee Assistance Program is
organized and administered, influenced to some extent by the need for
confidentiality, EAP program data (other than numbers enrolled) are
not collected and analyzed.
FPL staff has recommended a system to collect and facilitate analysis
of fitness for duty data.
It is assumed that if FPL implements staff
~
recommendations to hire an EAP professional, that person would
collect and analyze EAP data.
Integration end analysis of data from
both programs then may be considered.
2.
Periodic Audits
-
.
.
Although informal reviews have been conducted, no audits have been
-
completed as yet.
FPL audit staff is being trained an~d criteria are
-
'
~
being developed. . When developed, the audit criteria will be based
upon FPL's promulgated program documents and contract provisions
rather than the EEI. Guide.
The audit will not be an independent
-
professional review for judging the effectivenees of the program.
The c;dit steff will include 3 auditors dedicated full-time to
fitness for duty audits of the licensee's an.1 vendor (contractor)
-
programs and 7 auditors who will include fitness for duty audits as
part of routine contract / vendor audits.
'
On a related atter, the inspectors were informed that FPL will
conduct a pre-award audit of the contractor who will be performing
their new pre-employment screening program (similar to the proposed
10 CFR 73.56, Access Authorization Rule).
3.
Posting of Signs
Signs were not posted at the North Gate / employee entrance to notify
those seeking access to the site that alcohol and drugs arem
prohibite,d.
,
F.
Supplemental Program Elements - Not in EEI Guidh 4
'
Following are the inspectors' findings with respect to program efements
that would supplement those recommended in the EEI Guide, particularly
,
proactive measures to detect the presence of drugs onsite.
-
.
-6-
4
_
_
b
er
.
.-
. _ _ _ _ .
_ _ _ _
m
. .-
, _ .
y
.
.
,
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 action.
Procedures would also reduce the likelihood that the actions would be
mishandled.
Althcugh a few procedures have been developed by FPL, many situations
are dealt with through unwritten practices. The inspectors noted,
specifically, that procedures had not been developed for:
a.
handling situations involving critical jobs,
b,
dealing with an employee who has been in a rehabilitation
program, including assurance of rehabilitation and continued
~~
rehabilitation,
c.
evaluating impact on safety of past and future work,
d.
handling refusal or failure to respond to treatment / assistance,
e.
handling detection or sale of drugs,
.
~
f.
processing appeals,
g.
actions to be taken when problems are detected, suspected, or
reported offsite and off-duty,
-
actions to be taken when employee reports use of prescription
h.
substances that could impair judgment or reactions,
i.
handling abuse of prescription drugs, and
J.
handling anti-social or counter-institutional behavior that
would affect job performance, such as vandalism, threats, and
assaults.
2.
Professional Counseling Services
Professional counseling services would manage and carry out the
program, and provide initial diagnosis of the problem and referral to
the proper profecsional care. This would be particularly important
in the diagnosis and treatment of substance abuse and emotional
instability.
Professional counseling services are available offsite through
agreements with FPL. Although the method preferred by FPL for
obtaining the services is through the supervisor, alternative courses
are available, but not well publicized nor understood by
non-supervisory employees. As stated in Paragraph D.10, above, FPL
staff has recommended hiring an EAP professional who would perform
this function.
-7-
-_
-
-
.
.
..
- . . .
- -.-
'.
.
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 investigations,
psychological tests, interviews, and periodic rescreening (similar to
the contents of the proposed 10 CFR 73.56, Access Authorization
Rule).
Current screening practices for FPL employees are consistent
with ANSI N18.17-1973, i.e., investigation to disclose adverse
character traits, examination for indications of emotional
instability, and continued observation by supervisors for indications
of aberrant behavior.
Current screening practices for contractor
employees are less stringent than for FPL employees and permit
acceptance of a letter certifying tenure of trustworthy employment in
lieu of the investigation and examination.
_
FPL staff has recognized their current program is inadequate and
plans to upgrade their preemploymant screening, for both FPL
employees and contractor employees, to the proposed 10 CFR 73.56
criteria - with an additional condition that prohibits "grandfathering"
of individuals screened under the current program.
.
.
'
4.
Legal Reviews
}
Legal reviews would assure that company policies and procedures,
contracts, and union agreements meet legal requirements concerning
fitness for duty. The inspectors determined that legal reviews of
the above are sufficient, that bid responses are reviewed to assure
that all bid provisions concerning FFD are met, and no legal or
social issues have been encountered that would not be generic to
~
these programs in the nuclear industry.
5.
Proactive Measures to Detect the Presence of Drugs Onsite
These measures are intended to provide evidence of onsite drug
'
l
problems before they would be manifested in observable aberrant
i
behavior. These measures could alsa provide a deterrent to onsite
drug abuse. One FPL senior manager was concerned that the proactive
.
measures could adversely affect emoloyee trust.
Another senior
manager was of the opinion that an anonymous reporting system would
be disruptive and not be effective.
a.
Chemical testing of body fluids. As described in paragraph D.9,
above, random and periodic chemical tests are not conducted,
b.
Searches.
Searches of the workplace, including the use of drug
detector dogs, are not conducted.
FPL staff reported that such
searches were conducted a few years ago during the steam
generator outage, and that they were less than satisfied with
the results,
i
-8-
- - - .
- .~
_ . - - - - -
-
-.
-
- - -
-
-
- .. -
'
,
,
c.
Investigations.
In accordance with FPL policy, investigations
are only reactive. No proactive or covert / undercover
investigations are conducted.
d.
Mechanism for discreet expression of concerns. There is no
procedure established to permit confidential and anonymous
reporting of known or suspected drug activity, nor is there a
procedure that would assure that employees and contractors
leaving Turkey Point are interviewed and afforded the
opportunity to report known or suspected drug activity.
e.
Information from law enforcement authorities.
It shoyld be
noted that law enforcement authorities have no obligation to
report information on drug activities to NRC licensees.
Furthermore, as indicated in Paragraoh D.8 above, information on
anything less than major drug trafficking probably will not be
-
available from the local law enforcement authorities.
G.
Assessment on Whether There Exists an Ongoing Drug Problem
Detennination of the existence of an ongoing drug problem was attempted
through interviews; a more complete inquiry was not practical.
None of -
those interviewed expressed knowledge 6i ongoing drug problems.
'
Furthermore, FPL management knows of no ongoing drug or alcohol abuses at
-
,
Turkey Point.
This could be due to the fact that there is no drug
1
problem, or because the licensee's program has not yet detected it.
FPL's
fitness for duty program records for Turkey Point and St. Lucie indicate
two FPL employees were found since the fall of 1984 to be drug abusers
after being confronted by their supervisors for aberrant behavior. NRC
records indicate that FPL reported three drug related events, one each in
~
1977, 1981, and 1982. Other than the recent allegations of drug sale and
use occurring at Turkey Point during the period 1981-1984, the NRC has no
reports or data that would indicate s e existence of recent or ongoing
drug problems. As stated in Paragrav. E.1, above, FPL does r.ct collect
data on contractor administration of the program, and as stated in
Paragraphs D.3 and 7, above, NRC findings concerning contractor employees
are inconclusive due to time constrairts. There was insufficient data
obtained to permit the inspectors to conclude without reservation, whether
or not there exists an ongoing drug problem at Turkey Point.
H.
Adequacy of Fitness fcr Duty Program to Deal with Drug Problems
In order to deal with a problem, there is an obvious need to be able to
detect its er.istence. As noted in the precedirg paragraph, FPL management
and employees know of no ongoing drug abuse problem onsite, possibly
because the licensee's program is unable to detect it.
Except for
isolated cases of impairment which are readily obs"rvable to supervisors,
it is doubtful that FPL could detect or. site abuses within the ranks of its
own employees or its contractors. The licensee's FFD program' places he6vy
reliance on supervisor detection of aberr6nt behavior and not on a
well-rounded program of other assorted elements.
In addition, lack of
feedback built into the EAP program, as described in Paragraph D.10 above,
-9-
, _ ,
.-
-
.
.
',
..
.
has a potential for preventing the licensee from dealing with some drug
problems and from taking proper action on related potential safety
problems.
Recommendations by the FPL staff, as described in this report to improve
policy communication, (Paragraph D.3), conduct chemical testing after
accidents (Paragraph D.9), upgrade the EAP (Paragraph D.10), collect and
analyze data (Paragraph E.1), and improve preemployment screening
(Paragraph F.3), along with the implementation of audits (Paragraph E.2),
should improve their FFD program.
As described in this report, FPL does deal with drug problems when
they are known to management. However, in the absence of measures other
than behavioral observation to detect drug use, there is doubt about the
ability of the licensee's program to deal with drug problems.
._
G
.
-
E
o
- 10 -
- .
. _ _ _ _ _ _ .
.
_
.-
-
. . - .