ML20237A010
| ML20237A010 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Byron  |
| Issue date: | 12/04/1987 |
| From: | Reed C COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | Partlow J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 3906K, NUDOCS 8712140191 | |
| Download: ML20237A010 (7) | |
Text
-
Commonwealth Edison l
$j One First National Plaza, Chicago, Illinois b/
Kd~ dress Reply to: Post Office Box 76F Chicago, Ill:nois 60690 0767 l
J December 4, 1987 Mr. James G. partlow, Director Division of Reactor Inspection and Safeguards Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 1
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Subject:
Commonwealth Edison Company Fitness for Duty Program NRC Docket Nos. 50-454 and 50-455 Reference (a):
September 22, 1987 letter from J.G. Partlow to C. Reed
Dear Mr. Partlow:
This is in response to reference (a) which provided the results of the NRC inspection of Commonwealth Edison's Fitness for Duty Program. That inspection was conducted July 13 - 17, 1987 and included a review of the program implementation at Byron Station.
We have reviewed the observations documented in the inspection report and note that most of the findings refer to certain areas where our Fitness for Duty Program is not consistent with the Commission's Policy Statement or EEI Guide regarding fitness for duty programs. Commonwealth Edison fully supports the objectives which form the basis for the Commission's Policy Statement and EEI Guide and, in large part, our program conforms to the guidance in those documents. Recognizing there are portions of our Company program that are not in full accord with the Commission's Policy Statement or EEI Guide, we still believe our program is very effective in achieving the goal of a drug free environment at our nuclear plants.
In establishing our company program, cs well as during periodic reviews of it, we have sought to incorporate every responsible and effective practice which will assure our nuclear plants are operated and maintained by individuals who are fit for duty.
We appreciate the input received from the NRC inspection team and, in light of their observations, we have decided to enhance our program in particular areas. However, for certain observations, our response explains why we believe our company program is adequate and that further incorporation of EEI guidance is not necessary.
871214o191 871204
{DR ADOCK 05000454
/y 1
PDR p
I J.G. Partlow December 4, 1987 Enclosed is our detailed response which addresses the first four observations in the inspection summary and offers comments to clarify observations made in other areas.
If you have any questions concerning our response, please contact the Nuclear Licensing Manager.
Very truly yours, C.
C. Reed Senior V. ice President Enclosure 3906K l
ENCLOSURE NRC Observation 1 Ceco's written policies differ from some of the features contained in the Commission's Policy Statement or recommended by the EEI Guide, a.
Most of the differences appear to result from no site policies being promulgated by Byron to expand upon company wide policies.
b.
Some of the differences provide management latitude in handling problems on a case by case basis.
Response
The concern here seems to be over the written word rather than the programs that are in place.
In every instance, the Company's practices are consistent with the EEI Guide and are effectively administered by trained supervisors who are supported by written guidanco, such as our Fitness for Duty Manual, Policy Statement, and training materials.
In addition, support is also provided by resource personnel at the site and General Office. As noted in the inspection report, "All Ceco Supervision interviewed had been trained, were knowledgeable of the program and understood their responsi-bilities." With respect to detailed written procedures, it has been Commonwealth Edison's experience that fitness for duty cases are usually complex and require careful handling on a case by case basis utilizing appropriate information, resources and personnel. We believe our Fitness for Duty Manual, Policy Statements, and Training Programs / Material provide a good foundation for handling cases of this nature.
Detailed written procedures prescribing what action should be taken in given cases reduces the flexibility needed to exercise good judgment and may not be in our best interest. Regarding authoritative documentation and implementation procedures, the Company's overall Policy Statement dated August 22, 1984 has been incorporated into Nuclear Operations Policy NSDP-A10. However, this document will be reviewed to determine if changes are needed to clarify what is expected of each station with respect to its implementation. This review should be complete by the end of the second quarter of 1988.
Furthermore, each station will develop site specific guidelines to document the local application of the Policy. We expect to develop the site specific guidelines by the end of the third quarter of 1988.
i NRC Observation 2 Chemical tests of body fluids are used for reemployment screening of Ceco employees, and follow-up testing of CECO employees in the EAP.
All people employed on site are subject to testing for cause. Random or periodic tests are not conducted, Ceco does not test contractor employees; rather CECO expects that a.
contractors will conduct the tests.
b.
Many Ceco and long term contractor employees have never been tested because they were hired before reemployment testing was initiated.
c.
Urine is collected under direct observation.
d.
Cut off limits are suitably conservative.
Response
From the very beginning, we felt that it was important for our program to be viewed from a positive health and safety perspective. Much of the success that our program has had is a direct result of the employee and union support that our program has received. Many companies that have instituted a random testing program have experienced significant employee relations problems as a result. Secondly, another key to our program's effectiveness in recent years has been increasingly vigilant supervisory observation of employee behavior and a willingness on the part of supervisors to'take action. Under a random testing program, supervisors would find it easier to wait for an employee to be caught through a drug screen rather than take action immediately when an employee is exhibiting aberront behavior. Thirdly, cocaine is now the most popular drug on the market. In order for drug tests to pick up traces of cocaine, the sample must be taken within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> of drug usage. This trend would seem to decrease the chances of catching a drug user with a random test in all but the most addicted users. Those cases should be the most obvious ones to be idahtified through supervisory observation. Consequently, in the end, we would gain very little and random testing would probably have a detrimental impact on our overall Fitness for Duty program.
Our program of reemployment and for cause testing has been helpful in identifying users. This program has been in place since early 1982 and we have seen no reason to retroactively test those employees and contractors who were hired before that date. Our supervisory behavioral observation program is effective in identifying those employees in that group with a problem and when warranted, we require them to submit to a for cause test.
I In response to the point that we expect contractors to perform tes's on their employees rather than for us to administer their tests, we feel that this is an appropriate approach. However, we feel that our contractor testing program needs to be strengthened. We plan to establish a more detailed contractor fitness for duty program by the end of the first quarter of 1988.
i l
d NRC Observation 3 Ceco supervisors have been trained, however, contractor supervisors had not been trained.
Response
Approximately every two years, supervisory training programs are conducted on site for Company supervisors. We will examine the feasibility of providing the same training to contractor supervisors and will develop a plan by the end of the first quarter in 1988 for implementing this training or similar training.
i NRC Observation 4 CECO employees were aware of the policy, however, awareness training for contractor employees was somewhat limited.
Response
Present contracting employee training and information regarding fitness for duty will be reviewed and a plan for strengthening it will be developed by the end of the first quarter of 1988.
NRC Observation 5 No formal audit program has been developed.
Response
We are committed to audits. Our Fitness for Duty Program has been audited by our Quality Assurance De: artment; Bensinger, DuPont, and Associates; and INPO. We will continue to conduct audits on a regular basis and examine ways to formalize the process which will include auditing the testing laboratories which we are using.
l l
4 l
l l
-4_
Miscellaneous NRC Observations While comments were not requested on information generally contained in the body of the NRC inspection report, we wish to clarify certain features of our policy and practices.
In a few areas of the inspection report, we believe that a more complete discussion of our program might be a useful contribution to the record.
A.
Written policies (page 3, paragraph D.1)
The NRC inspection report refers to several actions which are listed in our policy statement as being " dischargeable offenses".
In every case involving these kinds of employee violations of the company's Fitness for Duty policy, the action we have taken has been discharge. This practice was verbally acknowledged by the NRC inspection team at the time of the exit review.
The inspection report states that " impairment is limited to being under the influence of alcohol".
In practice, we expect supervisors through behavioral observation to refer employees to the Medical Department or our employe Assistance program. This is true for employees who may be on drugs, alcohol, or simply in an unstable condition. Oftentimes, impaired performance is the clue that tells a supervisor action must be taken.
Drug testing itself, according to the present state of the art, cannot determine degree of impairment.
If a professional decision is made that a drug test should be administered and the results are positive, we assume impairment and we will not permit the employee to return to work in that condition.
According to the inspection report, alcohol is not prohibited by policy from the protected area or from company property and operations, although possession or consumption is prohibited on the job. This is a misreading of our policy since one cannot have access to most of these areas without being on the job. The only area that may be unclear is employee parking lots. We do prohibit consumption. Apparently, there is need to increase plant security efforts to insure that this is being followed.
In addition, this point will be clarified in the Fitness for Duty policy Manual referred to earlier.
As stated in the inspection report, we do not handle employ es involved with drug and/or alcohol in designated positions differently from other employees. All employees are subjected to the same high standard of behavior and consequently are dealt with in the same manner.
Although testing for drugs in cases of off the job use is not mentioned in the policy, our ucct ice has been to give tests based upon the professional decision of our Medical Department. This practice is now included in our written testing standard.
L,
., I The NRC inspection team questioned the degree to which our employees are informed about measures the Company takes to determine the extent of illegal involvement with drugs. Anytime information comes to our attention regarding drug use, it is our practice to fully and expeditiously review and investigate the specific situation. The thoroughness of the
)
investigations which have taken place as a result of various situations
{
brought to our attention has been a very effective method for making our-employees eware of how we deal with such situations. On the premise that
=
action and examples speak much louder than words, and recognizing that our 1
people quickly become aware of our investigative measures, including the j
guickness and thoroughness of our reviews, we believe our people understand 4
the measures we take in implementing our policy.
B.
Contractor Notification (Page 6, paragraph D.7) l The NRC requested CECu to audit Power Cutting, Inc.'s (PCI) Fitness
{
for Duty Program since it is located within our geographical area. PCI was asked to submit an amended policy which we approved. A close out audit will be conducted in January, 1988.
C.
Employee Assistance Programs (Page 9, paragraph D.10)
In light of the inspection report finding that Company employees, while generally aware of our EAP Program, were not familiar with its goals, how it worked or how to use the program, the Company will expand its already extensive educational effort.
In spite of numerous mailings home (including one in July, 1987), bulletin board postings, and articles in Company publications, our EAP Program information has apparently still not registered with some employees. We will review the educational effort and develop a plan by the end of the first quarter of 1988 to reinforce the EAP message. Where appropriate, our EAP program will be a subject for a round of employee safety meetings.
D.
Substance Abuse Committ'ee (Page 9, paragraph E.1)
The inspection report states that we have not established a substance abuse committee nor do key people fulfill committee functions on an ad hoc basis. We have organized a Fitness for Duty /EAP Committee made up of representatives from our Medical Department and EAP, Nuclear and Fossil Operations, Labor Relations, and Corporate Security. Since August, 1986, this committee has met on a quarterly basis to review and learn from individual cases and discuss the ongoing implementation and procedural issues relating to our Fitness for Duty Program.
E.
Mechanism for Discreet Expressions of Concern (Page 12, paragraph F.5d)
The inspection report states that we provide no employee hot line or mechanism for discreet expressions of concern. We are in the process of l
evaluating the applicability of this kind of program to our operating sites and will reach a decision in the next six months.
3906K
_ _.