ML20205P871
| ML20205P871 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 05/16/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Asselstine, Palladino, Roberts NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML082970435 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-54FR24468, RULE-PR-2, RULE-PR-26 AC81-2-089, AC81-2-89, NUDOCS 8605270051 | |
| Download: ML20205P871 (9) | |
See also: IR 05000250/1986023
Text
. _ _ _
.
%,'
UNITED STATES
-
[
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
"
5
WASMN80 TON, D. C. 3e005
\\,,,,,
May 16, 1986
~
-
.
y-
.4
.
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Palladino
"
Comissioner Roberts
Comissioner Asselstine
Comissioner Bernthal
Comissioner Zech
-
FROM:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
SUBJECT:
ASSESSMENT OF FITNESS FOR DUTY PROGRAM
AT TURKEY FOINT
,
By Staff Requirements Memorandum of March 20, 1986, the staff was directed
to make an assessment on whether there exists an ongoing drug problem at
Turkey Point and, if so, whether the itcensee's fitness for duty program is
.
adequate to deal with it. This request resulted from allegations of drug
involvement at River Bend by personnel who were alleged to have also worked
at other facilities, including Turkey Point.
The enclosed inspection report indicates that no specific information was
obtained that would indicate the presence of an ongoing problem at Turkey
, Point. As discussed in the report. FPL does deal with drug problems when
they are known to management. However, the team did question the ability of
the licensee's program to detect the existence of a drug problem.
Original signed by
'
Victor Stello
.
Victor Stello, Jr.
Executive Director for Operations
i
Enclosure:
Inspecti.on Report
50-250/86-23
cc w/ enclosure:
OPE
SECY
l
l
c(f ( *L k W9
)L
ll'
'
-
,
_
..__ _
._.
_.
, _ _ _ . .
_ _ . _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ .
_
. _ _
_ , . _ _ , . _ . .
- . . -
.
.-s
.u-
___..
24,
.me-
4 ~
m
-_.=
,s
. . -
m
-
-
.
-
i
-
,
.
. .
,
The Commissioners
-2-
DISTRIBUTION:
DI Reading
ORP8 Reading
VStello, ED0
TRehm
JSniezek, DEROGR
i
BHayes, 01
HRDenton, NRR
.
TNovak, NRR
l
LRubenstein, NRR
DMcDonald, NRR
i
JMTaylor
RHVollmer
_-
.
JGPartlow
'
PFMcKee
LJCunningham
-
LBush
TMurley, Region I
JNGrace, Region II
JGKeppler, Region III
.
RDHartin, Region IV
JBMartin, Region V
JLieberman, OELD
.
.
J
h
.
r
6
CL O,
s
- IEt
- IE:A/DEDROGR
'
0FC :IE:0RP8
- IE:0RPB
- IE:0RPB
- IE:DIR/D
- D/DIR
. . . . . : _ . . . . . . _ _ _ . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . : . _ _ . . . _ _ K_ )
__..__)DIR
_ .... ___.
, ....__.........___
NAME :LBush: esp
- JCunningham :PFMcKee
- JGPartlow
- RHVo
er
- JM
y
- JSniezek
...._:.....__..___:........_...:___.........:._______....:..
____...
7_ _____..._________
__
DATE :5/ /86
- 5/ /86
- 5/ /86
- 5/r'1/86
- e
/86
- S U86
- 5/ /86
'
.
OFC
- EDO
_____:..........__:...______...:..........__:.....__.....:...._______..........___........_____
NAME :VStello
...__:..__ .......:............:............:_______...._:............. ___ ...............___.
DATE :5/ /86
1
, - - - - - - , - _ , ,
-.. -- -.. -..
,-. - _ . - -
,
, . , . , . , .
. , _ , . , _
. _ , .
_.
-__
.
e atuq'o
,
UNITED STATES
g **
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
!
n
i
h
.,
WASHINGTON D. C. 20555
s
e
%, . . . . . /
May 14, 1986
D:cket Nos. 50-250
and 50-251
Florida Power and Light Company
ATTN: Mr. C. O. Woody
Group Vice President
Nuclear Energy Department
Post Office Box 14000
Juno Beach, Florida 33408
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT:
Inspection Report 50-250/86-23 and 50-251/86-23
This letter forwards the report of an inspection conducted by an NRC team on
-
April 1-4, 1986 to review the Turkey Point / Florida Power and Light Company
fitness for duty program. This inspection was conducted jointly by members of:
Region II and the Office of Inspection and Enforcement. At the conclusion
of the inspection, the findings were discussed at an exit meeting with those
-
members of your staff identified in the enclosed inspection report.
The inspection report describes areas where your fitness for duty program does
2
not appear to meet certain standards adopted by the nuclear power industry in
the EEI Guide to Effective Drug and Alcohol / Fitness for Duty Policy Development.
The report also describes supplemental fitness for duty program elements not
-
contained in the EEI Guide which were examined by the inspection team. Within
30 days of receipt of this letter, it is requested that you provide this office
with any comments concerning the results of our review, including a description
of your planned actions to further incorporate appropriate provisions of the
EEI guidelines on fitness for duty.
Should you have any questions concerning this inspection, please contact
me or Mr. Loren Bush at (301) 492-8080.
4
Sincerely,
n-
N
James'G. P rtlow', Director
'
Division of Inspection Programs
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
'
-
Enclosure:
Inspection Report 50-250/86-23
and 50-251/86-23
cc w/ enclosure:
See next page
,/,/ n I c/
,
,
,-
. .
-
,
-
--
-..
. _ - . - - _ - . . - - -
- _ - - . - - -
.
_. -
.
,
,.
,
Florida Power & Light Company
-2-
May 14, 1986
,
4
i
T
!
cc w/ enclosure:
Mr. C. M. Wethy, Vice President
Intergovernmental Coordination
.
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
and Review
,
P. O. Box 029100
Executive Office of the Governor
'
l
Miami, Florida 33102
The Capitol Building
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Mr. C. J. Baker, Plant Manager
'
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
Administrator
P. O. Box 029100
Department of Environmental
.
Miami, Florida 33102
Regulation
'
Power Plant Siting Section
Mr. L. W. Bladow, Plant QA Superintendent
State of Florida
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
2600 Blair Stone Road
P. O. Box 029100
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
-
Miami, Florida 33102
Martin H. Hodder, Esquire
Mr. J. Arias, Jr.
1131 NE, 86th Street
-
j
Regulatory and Compliance Supervisor
Miami, Florida 33138
>
j
Turkey Point Nuclear Plant
P. O. Box 029100
Joette Lorion
-
j
Miami, Florida 33102
7269 SW, 54 Avenue
Miami, Florida 33143
.
i
]
Mr. Harold F. Reis Esquire
Newman and Holtzinger, P.C.
Attorney General
l
1615 L Street, N.W.
Department of Legal Affairs
l
Washington, D.C.
20036
The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
1
l
-
Mr. Jack Shreve
i
Office of the Public Counsel
Mr. Thomas Peebles
j
Room 4 Holland Building
Resident Inspector
i
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission
l
Turkey Point Nuclear Generating
- Mr. Nonnan A. Coll, Esquire
Station
Steel Hector and Davis
Post Office Box 57-1185
l
4000 Southeast Financial Center
Miami, Florida 33257-1185
i
Miami, Florida 33131-2398
I
Mr. M. R. Stierheim
l
County Manager of Metropolitan
j
Dade County
Miami, Florida 33130
.:
!
Mr. Allan Schubert, Manager
Public Health Physicist
i
{
Department of Health and
!
Rehabilitative Services
,
l
1323 Winewood Boulevard
!
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
i
'
l
I
.
.
. - .
. - - - .
-
--
- _ __
---.
- . .
. .
.- _ -._
- - - _ _ . - .
..
.-
.
e
.0
,
.
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 condu::ted: April 1-4, 1986
,
.
Type of Inspection: Announced Special Inspection of Fitness for Duty Program
"
-
N6
Inspectors:
C Eoren L. Bush, J M enio~r Security Specialist
Date
-
Division of Inspection Programs, IE
,.
v[t
-
-
Richard P. Rosano, Security Specialist
Date
Division of Inspection Programs, IE
C'
h y # " W'
/
Y&rM
n
lliam J. Tobin Anior Security Inspector
Date
Region II
Approved by:
/
9/L4 /8(e
Priillip F. 5tKee, Chief
Date
Reactor Programs Branch, IE
,
3 J l 0 [ 'l l ($
l bpf.
. . . -
- .
.
_
--.
.
.
.
-. .
. _ _ .
.
.
..
.
.
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 recommended 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:
a
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.
4
--
2.
Supervisory training and awareness appears adequate,
_.
,
j
3.
Employee awareness of the fitness for duty program needs improvement.
1
4.
Chemical testing of body fluids is used for pre-employment and for -
cause; random or periodic testing are not conducted.
.
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
i
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,
s
7.
EAP program rtatistical data are very limited, and neither EAP nor
,
FFD data have been analyzed.
i
!
.
.
i
j
-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
4
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 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 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.
-1-
'
. - . .
.,
.-.
__
__ -
.
-
.-
.
- . _ .
_ _ .
- . _
- - - . . - ._-
- - - _ .
-
.
- -
-
. _ _ - - - -
.'
,
.
.
..
,
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.
Fh was reluctant to state, as recommended
by the EEI Guide, that "whenever possible, the company will assist
i
employees in overcoming drugs, alcohol, and other problems . . . ".
,
i
,
The inspectors noted that many policies and practices are unwritten,
i
i
j
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
!
i
practice an employee charged with offsite use, possession, or sale of
drugs would be suspended (when FPL learned of the charges), and if
i
!
the employee were convicted, FPL would consider termination, as has
i
j
been done in the past.
I
2.
Top Management Support
Based upon empi yee interviews and reviews of the disposition of
'l
l
reported cases see Paragraph D.4, below) the inspectors concluded
t
I
that management has been fair and impartial in enforcing FPL policy,
j
'
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
j
l
efforts to comunicate 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
'
4
!
only, and no one onsite has clear responsibility for managing and
j
communicating the program.
.I
-
3.
Effective Policy Communication
FPL reported that all employees were provided an initial program
briefing and booklet in late 1984, and that fitness for duty is
occasionally discussed during monthly safety meetings which are open
!
l
l
to all employees. Occasional articles have appeared in the company
l
newsletter.
New employees have received the same information as part
.
!
i
of their orientation.
I
$
The inspectors interviewed several licensee employees and a few
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 onseteof personal problems;
l
however, they appeared to lack knowledge of possible alternatives if
!
,
i
they were reluctant to contact their supervisor, as several of those
i
i
interviewed stated they were (also see Paragraph F.5.d below).
l
l
.
Comunication problems were also evidenced by the fact 'that many of
l
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
]
i
-2-
1
!
l
i
.- - .- .- -
- - .
- ~ - -
- - .
- - - . . . - - _ - - _ .
.
- - -..--- -
_. _
_
._
__
,
.
.
..
.
.
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 parmitted 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 behavio,r
(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-
__.
_
__
__
_
,
_ _ _ _ _
. __
_
_
_
._ _
'
.
.
-
.
..
.
.
.
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 progran 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.
-
4
i
Licensees have the option of " devitalizing" vital areas during cold
,
shutdown or refuleing operations to reduce the access screening
i
burden. This technique could also be used to eliminate the need for
a fitness for duty program during these periods. The instructors
4
,
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 not contact the local
law enforcement authorities. Based on statements made by FPL staff
in conjunction with information obtained by Region II inspectors
i
-
during previous security inspections, it would appear that the liaison
is governed by the Dade County Metro Police Department interest in
i
drugs which is essentially limited to significant amounts.
1
I
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."
i
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
I
1
!
-4-
!
i
,
--
--
.
.- . .
_-
_-.
-
_ _ _ _
_
_
_____.
_
.
.
.
..
.
.
custody is documented, that laboratory standards and procedures exist
that minimize the possibility of error, that confirmation of all
positives is made by a different chemical process, and that another
(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).
Ba ed 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
i
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 recomended 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 recomendations.
E.
Miscellaneous EEI Guide Features
Following are the inspectors' findings with respect to miscellaneous
features of the EEI Guide.
!
-5-
..
. - _ -
.
_ .-_
.-
_ ._ _
__
-
-
-
.
.
o
..
.
.
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
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 and 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 and criteria are
-
being developed. When developed, the audit criteria will be based
upon FPL's promulgated progran documents and contract provisions
rather than the EEI Guide. The audit will not be an independent
professional review for judging the effectiveness of the program.
The audit staff will include 3 auditors dedicated full-time to
fitness for duty audits of the licensee's and vendor (contractor)
-
programs and 7 auditors who will include fitness for duty audits as
part of routine contract / vendor audits.
On a related matter, 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
i
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 are
prohibited.
F.
Supplemental Program Elements - Not in EEI Guide
Following are the inspectors' findings with respect to program elements
that would supplement those recommended in the EEI Guide, particularly
proactive measures to detect the presence of drugs onsite.
'
-6-
.1
i
.
.
.
-
.
.s
,,
.
1.
Written Procedures
Wri.tten 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.
Although 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,
h.
actions to be taken when employee reports use of prescription
'
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 professional 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 preemployment 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
i
i
Legal reviews would assure that company policies and procedures,
contracts, and union agreements meet legal requirements concerning
4
fitness for duty. The inspectors determined that legal reviews of
j
the above are sufficient, that bid responses are reviewed to assure
1
-
that all bid provisions concerning FFD are met, and no legal or
!
social issues have been encountered that would not be generic to
l
these programs in the nuclear industry.
'
i
5.
Proactive Measures to Detect the Presence of Drugs Onsite
l
~
These measures are intended to provide evidence of onsite druo
problems before they would be manifested in observable aberrant
behavior. These measures could also provide a deterrent to onsite
drug abuse. One FPL senior manager was concerned that the proactive
I
measures could adversely affect employee trust. Another s'enior
manager was of the opinion that an anonymous reporting system would
be disruptive and not be effective.
,
!
a.
Chemical testing of body fluids. As pescribed in paragraph D.9,
'
above, random and periodic chemical tests are not conducted.
j
b.
Searches. Searches of the workplace, including the use of drug
i
detector dogs, are not conducted.
FPL staff reported that such
l
searches were conducted a few years ago during the steam
l
generator outage, and that they were less than satisfied with
j
the results.
!
1
8-
-
!.
-+-s-
- -.w-y-.,ww%e
--,-wew
--p--w
yymm----i.----.m
y
- -
mw--m
y
-.we=T---
r
---,-w--,------
y--,w-
-w--
,.pm
y
---+,w-myy-
--
9--g.------
+ - --
y
y
._ .
_
_
..
.
_.
. -
_ __
.
,
.
we .,
.
,
!*
c.
Investigations.
In accordance with FPL policy, investigations
l
are only reactive. No proactive or covert / undercover
investigations are conducted.
i
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.
Infomation from law enforcement authorities.
It should be
noted that law enforcement authorities have no obligation to
i
'
report information on drug activities to NRC licensees.
,
Furthermore, as indicated in Paragraph 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
1
Detemination of the existence of an ongoing drug problem was attempted
,
i
through interviews; a more complete inquiry was not practical. None of -
those interviewed expressed knowledge of 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
,
'
problem, or because the licensee's program has not yet detected it.
FPL's
l
fitness for duty program records for Turkey Point and St. Lucie indicate
!
,
t
two FPL employees were found since the fall of 1984 to be drug abusers
i
after being confronted by their supervisors for aberrant behavior. NRC
i
-
records indicate that FPL reported three drug related events, one each in
l
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 the existence of recent or ongoing
!
drug problems. As stated in Paragraph E.1, above, FPL does not collect
,
.
data on contractor administration of the program, and as stated in
j
Paragraphs D.3 and 7, above, NRC findings concerning contractor employees
are inconclusive due to time constraints. There was insufficient data
l
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 for Duty Program to Deal with Drug Problems
f
l
In order to deal with a problem, there is an obvious need to be able to
i
detect its existence. As noted in the preceding 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 observable to supervisors,
i
it is doubtful that FPL could detect onsite abuses within the ranks of its
own employees or its contractors. The licensee's FFD program * places heavy
i
reliance on supervisor detection of aberrant behavior and not on a
!
.
l
well-rounded program of other assorted elements.
In addition, lack of
l
'
feedback built into the EAP program, as described in Paragraph D.10 above,
l
,
,
j
-9-
l
'
l
...
-
- - - -
-
.
. -
. - . ~ .
- . - - - .
.
_ . .
.___ .
.
J
..
'
,
-
.
. , < . . ,
.
.
.
.
has a potential for preventing the licensee from dealing with some drug
problems and from taking proper action on related potential safety
probl ems.
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 cf 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.
9
e
O
O
..
6
.I
e
- 10 -
.
-
__
- .
.
-
,
WoA:
-
w.,
. .
,
m-
I',,,.
d
"
_
%"
.. Survey of Lndustry anc Government Proc rams
To Combat Drug anc A colol Abuse
-.
._ ::
_
.-
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Office of Inspection and Enforcement
W. Altman, 'N. Brown, L. Busn
' :ro
-
_
4 Jf"
3
f
K
4
L
?
tr .
\\ u z )y /
i
s,
....
- - _ _ _
QUESTION 5.
-Exactly what is a " Policy Statement," and what
regulatory force does it carry?
Please provide
-
the statutory.or regulatory basis for this term.
-
>
ANSWER.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 5529(a)(1)(D)
and (a)(2)(B)) requires an agency to publish its statements of
general policy or interpretations of general applicability in the
federal Register for guidance to the public.
One of the
recommendations of the Administrative Conference of the United
States is that an agency should articulate its policies through
published policy statements.
1 CFR 305.71-3 (Recommendation
No. 71-3).
The Administrative Conference explains that a policy
statement is an agency's indication of how it will exercise
discretion.
1 CFR 305.76-5 (Recommendation No. 76-5).
A policy
statement in and of itself provides guidance only and does not
carry " regulatory force" or statutory force.
A person cannot be
'
cited for not " complying" with a policy statement per se.
A
policy statement, however, may explain how an agency interprets
a statute or rule.
In such cases, the agency can enforce that
statute or rule in the way it states it will in that statement.
,
j
. , , - _ - _ . .
-
-.
. - _ _
,
,
- - . _
. - ,
- - . _
_
,_
_
,
- _ , . . - _
.
-
--
._ _ . _ _ - _ _ _
-
-
f
00ESTION 6.
In the past two years, how often has the Commission
re_ lied on policy statements instead of regulations?
Please identify each such instance and the
..
Commission's rationale for using a policy statement
i
in each case.
.
ANSWER.
^
!
The Comnission does not rely on policy statements in lieu of
j
regulatory requirements imposed either by rule or by license
condition.
In the past two years, the Commission has issued
policy statements in the following areas:
Administration
1.
"Regionalization" -- (PS-AO-1), March 1, 1984, 49 FR 7676.
2.
" Coordination and Information Exchange Meetings Between NRC
'
Staff and Organizations Involved in the Study of the Nuclear Power
,
Industry" -- (PS-AD-4), October 11, 1985, 50 FR 41480.
Conduct of Proceedings
3.
" Investigations, Inspections, and Adiudicatory Proceedings"
-- (PS-CN-3), September 13, 1984, 49 FR 36032.
I
4.
" Handling of Late Allegations" -- (PS-CN-Si, March 19, 1985,
5.
" Confidentially" -- (PS-CN-7), November 25, 1985, 50 FR
j
a8506, as corrected on December 12, 1985, in 50 FR 50864
!
Power Plants
6.
" Environmental Qualification of Electrical Equipment; Status
of June 30, 1982 Deadline" -- (PS-PR-32), November 15, 1984, 49 FR 45114.
7.
"Trainin
-- (PS-PR-32)g and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel"
, March 20, 1985, 50 FR 11147.
8.
" Emergency Planning" -- (PS-PR-35), May 21, 1985, 50 FR
,
20892.
9.
" Severe Reactor Accidents Regarding Future Designs and
Existing Plants" -- (PS-PR-37), August 8,
1985, 50 FR 32138,
10.
" Engineering Expertise on Shift" -- (PS-PR-50), October 28,
1985, 50 FR 43621.
l
j
. - . , . .
.
_ _ _ _ , _
- - - . , . ~ . _
, . . . , - . .
, . _ .
~_
__ ,_
__
. _ . ,
. _
s
a
-
l
QUESTION 6 (Continued)
-2-
-
11.
"Regul$ tion of Advanced Nuclear Power Plants," (PS-PR-53),
July 9, 1986, 51 FR 24643.
12.
" Fitness for Duty of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel" --
(PS-PR-57), August 4, 1986, 51 FR 27971.
-
13.
" Safety Goals for the Operation of Nuclear Power Plants" --
(PS-PR-59), August 4,
1986, 51 FR 28044, as corrected on
August 21, 1986, in 51 FR 300?8.
14.
" Emergency Planning -- Medical Services" -- (PS-PR-65),
September 17, 1986, 51 FR 3?904.
Transportation
15.
"NRC Response to Accidents Occurring During the
'
Transportation of Radioactive Material" -- (PS-TR-1), March 29,
1984, 49 FR 12335.
Aside from the policy statement on fitness for duty, the
Commission's policy statement of March 20, 1985, on " Training and
'
Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel" (50 FR 11147),
'
issued pursuant to the NRC Training Authorization in Section 306
of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 II.S.C. 6102?6), is the
most significant one among those listed where a policy statement
was issued rather than a rule.
Congress directed NRC in Section 306 to establish instructional
requirements for several categories of personnel either through a
,
regulation or through regulatory guidance, leaving it to NRC's
discretion to decide which regulatory approach to adcot.
Industry
i
urged the Commission to allow the industry to demonstrate its
initiative in the arena involving human motivations (so-called
human factors issues).
The Commission stated in the policy
statement that it would evaluate its own guidance and the
industry's response for a period of two years from the ef fective
date of the policy statement.
Thus, the Commission allowed the
industry a minimum of two years accreditation activity as a means
for industry to demonstrate self-improvement in training.
The
Commission believes that this industry initiative to demonstrate
excellence aas been successful and that training has improved much
more than could have been achieved using just NRC resources in the
l
time period since issuance of the policy statement.
,
.
4
. - - - - - -
--
- . - _ . . _ .
__ ._.
-._
_. _ . - - . . _ _ _ _
_ _.
_
_
_.
- . l
. w . ._,
QUESTION 7.
Please provide the Commission's position on each of
the following issues raised by Commissioner
.
Asselstine's views:
a.
When has the Commission carried out
enforcement action on a policy statement?
Describe each such instance.
b.
What is the statutory basis for Commission
enforcement of a policy statement?
c.
Provide the Commission's response to Commis-
sioner
Asselstine's view that " Absent a
specific event, it [the policy statementl
would not allow us to do much of anything
if a licensee simply has not developed or
implemented an adequate program."
d.
Are the EEI guidelines for fitness for duty
'~
mandatory or optional?
If they are optional,
how can the Commission enforce them?
'
ANSWER 7a.
The Commission has not taken enforcement action against a licensee
for failure to follow the guidance given in a Policy Statement.
Individual enforcement actions are taked for violations cited
against regulations, licenses, or orders rather than policy
statements.
,
As indicated in the response to question 5 above, a policy
statement does not carry " regulatory" or statutory force which
would be itself sufficient basis for an enforcement action.
ANSWER 7b.
i
Policy statements are not enforceable per se.
If an unsafe
'
i
situation arose at a licensed facility with respect to a matter
covered by a policy statement, however, the Commission could issue
an order under its general Atomic Energy Act authority to protect
the public health and safety or the common defense and security.
Such an order could require the licensee to take remedial action
and impose appropriate license conditions governing matters
otherwise covered by the Policy Statement.
<
ANSWER 7c.
NRC would not necessarily need a specific event to trigger action
related to the policy statement.
It remains NRC's continued
responsibility, as noted in the policy statement, to independently
evaluate development and implementation of fitness for duty
.r
.
,
.
_
_
_
s
+. .
programs to ensure that desired results are achieved.
Nothing in
the policy statem_ent limits NRC's authority or responsibility to
follow up on operational events or its enforcement authority when
regulatory requirements are not met.
The Commission explained in
the policy statement that it will evaluate the effectiveness of
utility fitness for duty programs by, among other ways, direct
inspections conducted by NRC's Performance Appraisal Teams,
Resident Inspectors and inspectors from the Regional Offices.
It also stated that violations of any applicable reporting
requirement or instances of a person being unfit for duty such
that plant safety is potentially affected will be subject to NRC's
enforcement process.
If the Commission suspected that a licensee
is not developing or implementing an adequate fitness for duty
program along the lines indicated in the policy statement, it
could inspect the licensee and require information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) to determine whether the license should be modified,
suspended or revoked.
Thereafter, if the Commission found that
the licensee's program was indeed inadequate, it could make, for
instance, a public health and safety determination under which it
'
could order modification of the license by inserting the elements
of the policy statement as a condition of continued operation.
ANSWER 7d.
At the Commission's request, the industry agreed to undertake a
review of the program elements and acceptance criteria for a
fitness for duty program.
EEI modified and issued its revised
guideline, and INP0 enhanced its performance objectives and
criteria for its periodic evaluations to include fitness for
duty policies and activities.
The nuclear utilities have stated
that they want to strive for excellence and do more than meet the
standards set by NRC, and they have agreed through NUMARC and
INP0.
Thus, although NRC has not used a rule to make EEI's
guideline mandatory, utilities have agreed to follow them and to
be evaluated by INP0 to ensure that they develop and implement
adequate programs.
Consequently, NRC can work with INP0, as
explained in the policy statement, to make sure that the EEI
Guideline are followed and it can take separate action, as
explained in answer to Question 7c, against an individual
applicant or licensee when such action is necessary.
+
,
. . _
-.
.
. - - - -
..
-
'
g
.
QUESTION 8.
A July 1, 1985 NRC memorandum from Ben B.
Hayes,
_ Director, Office of Investigations, to James M.
Taylor, was critical of the EEI guide on fitness
.
for duty:
"It is our view that it is of only limited
value for establishing an effective fitness
for duty program...
It not only fails to
provide definitive guidance, but does not
speak to certain aspects that we believe
are vital to meet the Commission's
- .
objectives regarding fitness for duty."
"[T]he EEI Guide, especially viewed as the
fruits of a two-year industry initiative,
is extremely disappointing and of limited
usefulness to the industry as a whole."
(A)
Does the latest draft of the EEI Guide
'
satisfy the Office of Investigations?
l
(B)
Provide all comments from the Office of
Investigation on the ECI Guide subsequent
to July 1,
1985.
.
ANSWER.
The comments the Office of Investigations (01) expressed in its
memoranda of July 1, 1985, September 6,
1985, and April 18,
1986, were based on an O! review of the initial EEI Guide and a
subsequent review of the revised guide provided NRC in August
1985.
01 has been informed that the August revision is the
current version of the guide.
OI's reviews regarding the
EEI Guide remain the same as those expressed in the above-
mentioned memoranda (Enclosure).
Enclosure
-..
. ~
. - . .
_
- -
. . _ . .
-
-